I am... and I prefer the term...

[greeneyedgrrl]

i think this thread is a great idea...

it'll be interesting to see how ppl respond, if they can get past the poll! ;-)

i am femme and id as cisgender, i use because i see it has helping to make the invisible privileges i was born into visible, not just to other cisgendered folks, but to myself as well. i see it as a way also to challenge the idea that the dominant culture's expectations of gender expression is what is "normal" and anything outside that box is "deviant" or "other". to adapt the old hetero quote: cisgender expression isn't normal, it's just common.

[greeneyedgrrl]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

It does go back to privilege, I think. And who decides what term to use? You know?

I totally agree! Transsexual/transgendered was not a label that was originally introduced by the people whom it was intended to label; it was a label assigned to people by the dominant culture who had the ability to force a label onto a group of people. I think that the only reason this is a debate right now is b/c cis attempts to label non-trans folks in a way that doesn't set us up as the norm, and the discomfort comes from it not feeling like the "normal" id. i needed a lot of dialogue around it before i felt like i understood and was comfortable using it, privilege can easily be discounted by those who have it.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

I totally agree! Transsexual/transgendered was not a label that was originally introduced by the people whom it was intended to label; it was a label assigned to people by the dominant culture who had the ability to force a label onto a group of people. I think that the only reason this is a debate right now is b/c cis attempts to label non-trans folks in a way that doesn't set us up as the norm, and the discomfort comes from it not feeling like the "normal" id. i needed a lot of dialogue around it before i felt like i understood and was comfortable using it, privilege can easily be discounted by those who have it.

Great post! Great point!

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

I totally agree! Transsexual/transgendered was not a label that was originally introduced by the people whom it was intended to label; it was a label assigned to people by the dominant culture who had the ability to force a label onto a group of people. I think that the only reason this is a debate right now is b/c cis attempts to label non-trans folks in a way that doesn't set us up as the norm, and the discomfort comes from it not feeling like the "normal" id. i needed a lot of dialogue around it before i felt like i understood and was comfortable using it, privilege can easily be discounted by those who have it.

Absolutely!

[foxyshaman]

Until I started on line with BF communities I had NO IDEA there extent of different identities. I don't use any term "cis" simply because until this particular thread I never really understood the distinction. I do know so... THANK YOU.

I consider myself a third gender, but I come at it from a shamanic perspective. I had no idea until I started my research that shamans were and are considered to be the third gender. I felt like I finally had a reference point to what I had referred to myself consistently over the years. Then I came to BF communities and found out there was another way to determine third gender. I have found that my referring to myself as the third gender is often poopooed or not given any notice <shoulder shrug>. Doesn't change it, just interesting to 'feel' the response.

It has been a LLLLOOOONNNGGGG journey for me to embrace my feminine side. I never had any problem with my female gender, I have never had gender dysphoria, and I am grateful for that. I was revising a teaching I had done from 2006 to teach in early 2011. In my notes was a reference to wanting to/wishing to find my feminine side... and totally forgot that... and then voila here I am 2011 and have found myself not only finding my feminine side, but lovingly embracing it.

So... I did not participate in the poll because I did not understand it at first glance. now I understand what the OP was after. I respect the poll, and certainly respect each posters opinions and thoughts.

I just wanted to share a foxes thoughts...

[Leigh]

I'm an FTM and I personally ID as Male, but I don't really go into Bio or Cis cuz I guess I just see Myself as a regular guy :-)

[Andrew, Jr.]

I too am a FTM, and see myself just as a guy. It is other people who seem to have issues with my id from what I have learned over time.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by julieisafemme

Ok that makes sense. So is it the societal expectations of how women are supposed to behave that you don't align with? That is the second part of the question and I, based on what you have posted, did not think that was true for you. I guess what I am trying to understand is that absent of societal expectations of how you should behave as a woman, do you feel aligned with your body and your internal sense of gender? Even if you do you still don't have to accept or use cisgender!! I am just asking.

The other reason I like the term is that it brought out the privilege that I experience in not having ever experienced gender dysphoria or going against what society expects of my gender. It was something I had never thought about or was aware of. I know this is just my experience and there are many people who are aware of this. I remember in another thread about this Heart said that as a feminist she has been contemplating her gender for a long time.

That probably comes being active during the Second Wave as the movement questioned the binary. This kicked in severly as the Gay Rights movement began as a related offshoot. And that could be why and how feminism was rejected by middle and upper middle-class (mainly, white) women that did fall within the range of what was considered "normal" for women- wife & mother. Tragic, really. But, what I am stating here is my personal feelings really having been an activist during that time. Heart will have to address this.

When I look back, I may not have had the terminology, but in the midst of questioning my sexuality, I questioned my gender. I never felt that I was male, but I sure knew I wasn't "of the norm" as a woman and a female and that heterosexuality (then, bi-sexuality) just wasn't who I was. Even in the kind of culture I was living in early on (the "mountain town"). For me, sexuality and gender identity was intermingled for a very long time.

Consequently, cis-gendered or cis-sexed doesn't work for me as an individual. However, I can see where it does for many people. Something else that has never fit is putting down women that do fit into the binary. It seems like not just a few femmes have been subjected to down right cruelty due to that kind of thinking because they may "appear" to fit the stereotype of the binary feminine or woman/female.

All in all- Queer seems to be the best fitting term for what I feel internally and about myself externally. But, I see the cis-gender/sexed theories can have a positive impact on society. We just have to get out of the confines of the binary system as it has stood for so long. Mainly, I want for all of us to be accepted as we are.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ruffryder_0187

However, Cissexual is an adjective used in the context of gender issues to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned".[1]

"Aligned"?!?! ....I guess that leaves me out of the cissexual panoply, then. As a lesbian butch I've never been "aligned" with any standard or norm.

Originally Posted by ruffryder_0187

Nikki Sullivan and Samantha Murray characterized the term as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[2] Wikipedia
So I guess a transgender person may identify with cissexual in the sense that after surgery and hormones they identify with the body and identity they are now?

"Unmarked norm"? ....Who's norm? Heterosexuals? Transgendered people? Transsexuals? Gay men? Femmes? Butches? Gender theorists? Feminists? Christionists? Taoists? Dalmatians?

"Against"? As in by way of a comparison?

I'm not sure how it's possible to compare lesbian butches with trans/gendered people. They are different identities - not the opposite of one another. You can compare apples with apples, but not bananas.

Sullivan and Murray's characterization leaves me cold. Lesbian butch is not a "norm" by any criteria I'm aware of, nor does it confer any real or imagined privilege.

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

I totally agree! Transsexual/transgendered was not a label that was originally introduced by the people whom it was intended to label; it was a label assigned to people by the dominant culture who had the ability to force a label onto a group of people. I think that the only reason this is a debate right now is b/c cis attempts to label non-trans folks in a way that doesn't set us up as the norm, and the discomfort comes from it not feeling like the "normal" id. i needed a lot of dialogue around it before i felt like i understood and was comfortable using it, privilege can easily be discounted by those who have it.

Cisgender privilege is a misnomer. Conformity isn't a privilege - it's it's a self-abrogating concession.

[greeneyedgrrl]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Cisgender privilege is a misnomer. Conformity isn't a privilege - it's it's a self-abrogating concession.

i can see your point. conformity can definitely be giving up your authenticity, and power.
i disagree that it is always that and i believe that there are some benefits to be had as well by those who conform. i do what feels right to me. does that mean i follow all of the norms or that i'm a virgin/whore wrapped up in a pretty package for your pleasure?? ...hells no. do i identify myself as aligned with the body i was born into? yes. does that give me certain rights? i would argue that yah, it does, unless you are living completely outside of society (in which case that's a whole other story). but because my sex aligns with the way i see myself, and the way that society views me i get to do things like get a job, i don't have to try to pass for someone i am not in order to feel or be safe, i don't have to explain my sex/gender to people, i can get a driver license/passport that id's me the way i want to be id'd (without any hassle or red tape), i get to use a bathroom without fear of having security called or getting beat up. basic stuff. things that should not be denied any group of people, but are. that's all i'm sayin.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

i can see your point. conformity can definitely be giving up your authenticity, and power.

The problem with conformity is, we don't always know we're doing it, and/or we call it by the wrong name, unintentionally or by design.

Even "being alternative", "gender queer", "fringe", "going G", yada, yada, can be a form of conformity. The conformity within my biker community comes to mind. (Accountants during the work week; Hell's Angeles on the weekend.)

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

i disagree that it is always that and i believe that there are some benefits to be had as well by those who conform.

Of course conformity has a pay-off, otherwise why do it? However, conformity always comes at a price, too.

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

i do what feels right to me. does that mean i follow all of the norms or that i'm a virgin/whore wrapped up in a pretty package for your pleasure?? ...hells no. do i identify myself as aligned with the body i was born into? yes. does that give me certain rights? i would argue that yah, it does, unless you are living completely outside of society (in which case that's a whole other story). but because my sex aligns with the way i see myself, and the way that society views me i get to do things like get a job, i don't have to try to pass for someone i am not in order to feel or be safe, i don't have to explain my sex/gender to people, i can get a driver license/passport that id's me the way i want to be id'd (without any hassle or red tape), i get to use a bathroom without fear of having security called or getting beat up. basic stuff. things that should not be denied any group of people, but are. that's all i'm sayin.

Well, you can argue anything, if you've a mind to.

Being aligned with the body you're born into isn't a "privilege". "Privilege" is a social construct - an arbitrary, subjective reality based on social norms and convention. You either buy into a given social construct (any construct), or you don't.

Butches do not have gender "privilege". They do not conform to the gender consructs of this culture be they female identified butches or not.

And btw, the opposite of "privileged" isn't deprivileged - it's unprivileged. Few women in this culture are "privileged". The LGBTQs should take care not to reinforce dominant culture myths that work against, or divide us.

Deprivileged = the loss of social privilege; to lose an advantage
Unprivileged = never being socially advantaged in the first place. (Butches and most women.)

PS: Foot binding was considered a gender norm among the "privileged" class in China not so long ago. Genital mutilation is still a norm in certain cultures. These practices are seen as making a woman more attractive and desirable. I suppose they advantage women who align with these practices. But, I'm loath to say they confer "privilege".

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

i can see your point. conformity can definitely be giving up your authenticity, and power.
i disagree that it is always that and i believe that there are some benefits to be had as well by those who conform. i do what feels right to me. does that mean i follow all of the norms or that i'm a virgin/whore wrapped up in a pretty package for your pleasure?? ...hells no. do i identify myself as aligned with the body i was born into? yes. does that give me certain rights? i would argue that yah, it does, unless you are living completely outside of society (in which case that's a whole other story). but because my sex aligns with the way i see myself, and the way that society views me i get to do things like get a job, i don't have to try to pass for someone i am not in order to feel or be safe, i don't have to explain my sex/gender to people, i can get a driver license/passport that id's me the way i want to be id'd (without any hassle or red tape), i get to use a bathroom without fear of having security called or getting beat up. basic stuff. things that should not be denied any group of people, but are. that's all i'm sayin.

I certainly see your points- yet, as a woman, you (and I as a butch woman) are more likely in this society to be sexually or phyically and emotionally assualted. Statistics demonstrate this. Just as there are higher rates of abuse and violence against transwomen within the tran population. So, being recognized as female, no matter the internal beliefs (or external presentation as observed by a potential abuser) of an individual continues (unfortunately) to be more dangerous across the board.

Add race, ethnicity and class to the mix and rates of abuse and violence against women (or those perceived as women) increase further.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

I certainly see your points- yet, as a woman, you (and I as a butch woman) are more likely in this society to be sexually or phyically and emotionally assualted. Statistics demonstrate this. Just as there are higher rates of abuse and violence against transwomen within the tran population. So, being recognized as female, no matter the internal beliefs (or external presentation as observed by a potential abuser) of an individual continues (unfortunately) to be more dangerous across the board.

Add race, ethnicity and class to the mix and rates of abuse and violence against women (or those perceived as women) increase further.

Yes, AtLastHome. No category of human being is more mistreated than females.

And, as you say: "race, ethnicity and class" statistically increases the likelihood of exploitation, abuse and violence.

[greeneyedgrrl]

Originally Posted by Chazz

The problem with conformity is, we don't always know we're doing it, and/or we call it by the wrong name, unintentionally or by design.

I agree, all the more reason to make it visible my friend!

Even "being alternative", "gender queer", "fringe", "going G", yada, yada, can be a form of conformity. The conformity within my biker community comes to mind. (Accountants during the work week; Hell's Angeles on the weekend.)

exactly! ..if you're not conforming to one group, you are to another, and not necessarily all at once.

Of course conformity has a pay-off, otherwise why do it? However, conformity always comes at a price, too.

Yes... of course, just as anything does, ain't nuthin in life that's free


Well, you can argue anything, if you've a mind to.

I can, and do, sounds like you do too! LOL

Being aligned with the body you're born into isn't a "privilege". "Privilege" is a social construct - an arbitrary, subjective reality based on social norms and convention. You either buy into a given social construct (any construct), or you don't.

agreed, it is arbitrary, and subjective and socially constructed, but it exists whether i "buy into" the construct or not (man if i could make shit disappear just by not buying in, no more tea party for sure). until enough people stop buying in, this is the system we're stuck with. i see it in the radical queer community as well, the same gender bullshit that the heteros buy into, femmes are expected to behave in certain ways as are butches etc. it's pervasive.. it's internalized and i look at things that bring visibility to to the invisible "dominant culture" in a conscious way, with intent, as a way, (albeit slow), to change that. nothing would happen if it wasn't acknowledged.

Butches do not have gender "privilege". They do not conform to the gender consructs of this culture be they female identified butches or not.

i id as femme, so i'll let ya handle that one...

And btw, the opposite of "privileged" isn't deprivileged - it's unprivileged. Few women in this culture are "privileged". The LGBTQs should take care not to reinforce dominant culture myths that work against, or divide us.

Deprivileged = the loss of social privilege; to lose an advantage
Unprivileged = never being socially advantaged in the first place. (Butches and most women.)

agreed...although i'm guessing that your idea of how to go about it differs from mine, and i'd love to argue, i mean hear about that... as for the women not being privileged in the first place, i think it depends who you are talking about in relation to whom. not sure why the vocabulary lesson...but ok.

PS: Foot binding was considered a gender norm among the "privileged" class in China not so long ago. Genital mutilation is still a norm in certain cultures. These practices are seen as making a woman more attractive and desirable. I suppose they advantage women who align with these practices. But, I'm loath to say they confer "privilege"

i am not even going to tough that one, that's got loaded written ALL over it.

i'm feelin a lil snarky tonight, just outta finals! woo hoo!

[AtLast]

Something that is going through my mind about the concept/construct of comformity and gender variation or fluidity has to do with when a couple a trans partner (or both could be) takes on heteronormative conformity by emulating being "straight."

These thoughts came to me while watching the Chaz Bono doc- when they said- "We are straight, now." First of all, not every couple with trans participants/partner(s) adopts being straight as it is commonly defined.

Perhaps that is the problem- definitions that are static and have no elasticity? Or maybe, the hetero-normative construct continues to be so instilled in society and so potent, we just can't shake it.

OK, I do not have any issues with anyone adopting a straight couple persona if that is what they want. I do, however, wish that this was not a conclusion jumped to- within or outside of the couplehood.

I hope I am posing this clearly... Mainly, I think we often fall prey to constructs of social conformity that are just plain false.

[Corkey]

In my mind if I were ever to transition, big if, it would be my id in flux, not my partners. Just a thought.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Corkey

In my mind if I were ever to transition, big if, it would be my id in flux, not my partners. Just a thought.

Makes sense to me and one reason I wish people didn't have hetero-normative labels bestowed upon them. Or, assumptions.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

i'm feelin a lil snarky tonight, just outta

You don't sound snarky, you sound incisive. Incisive is good !

You're way better at this computer quote stuff than me, but I'll give it a shot.

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

CHAZZ: The problem with conformity is, we don't always know we're doing it, and/or we call it by the wrong name, unintentionally or by design.

GREENEYEDGRRL: I agree, all the more reason to make it visible my friend!

CHAZZ: Yes, but "There are non so blind as those who will not see" and some people are deeply invested in not seeing.


CHAZZ: Even "being alternative", "gender queer", "fringe", "going G", yada, yada, can be a form of conformity. The conformity within my biker community comes to mind. (Accountants during the work week; Hell's Angeles on the weekend.)

GREENEYEDGRRL: exactly! ..if you're not conforming to one group, you are to another, and not necessarily all at once.

CHAZZ: The alternative to conformity isn't non-conformity. Nor is it about the superficial (i.e gender uniforms, posturing, or mimicry with a mythical twist). It's about self-awareness and self-reconciliation both of which are entirely inside jobs.


CHAZZ: Being aligned with the body you're born into isn't a "privilege". "Privilege" is a social construct - an arbitrary, subjective reality based on social norms and convention. You either buy into a given social construct (any construct), or you don't.

GREENEYEDGRRL: agreed, it is arbitrary, and subjective and socially constructed, but it exists whether i "buy into" the construct or not (man if i could make shit disappear just by not buying in, no more tea party for sure). until enough people stop buying in, this is the system we're stuck with. i see it in the radical queer community as well, the same gender bullshit that the heteros buy into, femmes are expected to behave in certain ways as are butches etc. it's pervasive.. it's internalized and i look at things that bring visibility to to the invisible "dominant culture" in a conscious way, with intent, as a way, (albeit slow), to change that. nothing would happen if it wasn't acknowledged.

CHAZZ: Yes, I see "the same gender BS the heteros buy into" in the LGBTQ community, too. If you call that stuff out, you risk being vilified or starting a "gender war". The question then becomes how to dialog about these things without hitting a wailing wall of denial and blind complicity. Especially since the operative these days is that feelings are facts when, of course, they are not.


CHAZZ: Butches do not have gender "privilege". They do not conform to the gender constructs of this culture be they female identified butches or not.

GREENEYEDGRRL: i id as femme, so i'll let ya handle that one...

CHAZZ: Deal.


CHAZZ: And btw, the opposite of "privileged" isn't deprivileged - it's unprivileged. Few women in this culture are "privileged". The LGBTQs should take care not to reinforce dominant culture myths that work against, or divide us.

Deprivileged = the loss of social privilege; to lose an advantage
Unprivileged = never being socially advantaged in the first place. (Butches and most women.)

GREENEYEDGRRL: agreed...although i'm guessing that your idea of how to go about it differs from mine, and i'd love to argue, i mean hear about that... as for the women not being privileged in the first place, i think it depends who you are talking about in relation to whom. not sure why the vocabulary lesson...but ok.

CHAZZ: Maybe my ideas are different from yours, maybe they are, at least in part. I do agree that "privilege" subscribes to the laws of relativity. And, not knowing you have "privilege" does not divest you from having it or (ab)using it.... I do see gender constructs as inculcated manifestations of power, control and dominance.... Those "who will not see" benefit from that even at their own expense. Life is paradoxical like that.

The "vocabulary lesson" was an attempt to reframe a misnomer. There is a tendency within the community to establish a hierarchy of oppression - everyone loses in that miscalculation. Hierarchies are a dominant culture artifact, so is misnomer-meistering. Both head critical thinking off at the pass.


CHAZZ: PS: Foot binding was considered a gender norm among the "privileged" class in China not so long ago. Genital mutilation is still a norm in certain cultures. These practices are seen as making a woman more attractive and desirable. I suppose they advantage women who align with these practices. But, I'm loath to say they confer "privilege".

GREENEYEDGRRL: i am not even going to tough that one, that's got loaded written ALL over it.

CHAZZ: OK, I'll touch it. It really doesn't serve us to become duplicating dupes. Broadly stated, men change the world, women change themselves to fit in.

[Quintease]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Something that is going through my mind about the concept/construct of comformity and gender variation or fluidity has to do with when a couple a trans partner (or both could be) takes on heteronormative conformity by emulating being "straight."

These thoughts came to me while watching the Chaz Bono doc- when they said- "We are straight, now." First of all, not every couple with trans participants/partner(s) adopts being straight as it is commonly defined.

Perhaps that is the problem- definitions that are static and have no elasticity? Or maybe, the hetero-normative construct continues to be so instilled in society and so potent, we just can't shake it.

OK, I do not have any issues with anyone adopting a straight couple persona if that is what they want. I do, however, wish that this was not a conclusion jumped to- within or outside of the couplehood.

I hope I am posing this clearly... Mainly, I think we often fall prey to constructs of social conformity that are just plain false.

I'm totally in agreement with you, why be straight when we already know there is an alternative? But what is straight? There are a lot of male/female couples who are, in their own way, queer. Straight couples fill the ranks of swinger parties, alternative clubs, bisexual websites, gay clubs and BDSM. I accept that it's possible to be into alternative sexual practices and be narrow-minded, but still it puts you into contact with people other than your normal social circle.

My bf considers himself a straight man, all he ever wanted was to be a normal guy. Of course his gf is queer, half his friends are queer and he's completely comfortable in a queer environment. None of that detracts from the fact that he's a normal guy who goes to work and fancies girls. Isn't that what us LGBT's have been fighting for all this time, the right to be as normal as the next guy?

[J. Mason]

Hmmm bumpin this thread up.