Over at The Thang Blog Rebecca has posted a good summary of how recent problems faced by trans women in feminist community blogs played out, particularly in relation to her own experience on Feministing. My personal opinion on the matter is pretty close to hers but that is not what I want to write about. No, this is about a conversation that developed in the comments where Rachel_in_WY as part of her comment said,
“But it’s not that I think cis women can’t contribute to a discussion like this. In this case I don’t think I can…”
Which I took to mean cis in the all encompassing sense of the adjective. I assumed Rachel to be both cisgendered and cissexual, which changed my assumptions about her, she quite rightly pointed that this was an assumption and was kind enough to explain why.
What’s the difference you might ask, between cisgendered and cissexual? Myself I like geopunk’s descriptions as concise and to the point,
Cisgender: Describes a person whose gender identity aligns with their assigned gender. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a person has to be comfortable with their society’s determined gender roles.
Cissexed: Describes a person whose physical body (i.e. genitals, reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics), as far as they know, aligns with their assigned sex. Someone can be cissexed without being cisgender; for example, many genderqueer people fall under this category.
Cis: When shortened to just cis, used as an umbrella term for someone who is both cisgender and cissexed.
Transgender: An umbrella descriptor for a person whose gender does not align with the one they were assigned. May include crossdressing/transvestism, gender fluid, genderqueer, and/or transsexual individuals. Sometimes shortened to trans* (with or without the asterisk) when used to mean “transgender and/or transsexual individuals”.
Transsexual/transsexed: Describes a person whose body does not align with their gender, and is either planning to, is in the process of, or has completed a process of changing it to align. This process of medical transition may include hormone therapy and/or surgery. There is no “one true way” to go about being transsexual.
Basically I assumed that in saying cis Rachel was indicating that she was identifying fully as cis. I don’t want to put further words into her mouth but I think she meant that she was using cis specifically in a cissexed context. It’s an interesting aspect of the words that while trans*, transgender and transsexual are regularly used and differentiated from one another, particularly amongst ourselves, the equivalent word cluster around cis are still vague and cis itself is seen as far more all encompassing than trans words are. Perhaps partly as there is less recognition of the fact that just because someone defines themselves as in some way cis it does not mean that they entirely feel themselves to be so. I think another issue is that the adjective cis is still not accepted by all cis people as a valid descriptor contributes. Discussion around the term focusses on whether trans* people should be allowed to create a word to replace the othering and discriminating situation of there being no words equivalent to trans* to describe people who are not. I feel that resistance to the word cis prevents the discussion moving on to be about what cis is, what it describes and how there can be categories within the term that cis people might use to describe who they are without the assumption that they are completely cisgendered and cissexed.
This brings me back to geopunk’s FAQ page and further complexity, ways to talk about where one is if one accepts that gender is more than just male/female,
Binary identity: Describes a person whose gender identity is defined more similarly to the way that their culture defines “man” and “woman”. This includes cis people, and also a great many trans* people. Some people define “cisgender” in this way, but in order to avoid confusion I use separate definitions.
Genderqueer: Describes a person whose identity is neither entirely male nor entirely female. Can be used as a noun or adjective. Genderqueers may be cissexed or transsexed. Genderqueers may identify as “all of the above” or “none of the above”, or bigendered, or polygendered, or genderfucked, or as an androgyne, or gender fluid. “Genderqueer” as a category is not mutually exclusive from “trans*”, although some genderqueer people do not identify as trans. There are probably as many definitions of genderqueer as there are people who identify this way, so I will keep my definition (and use of the term) vague but flexible.
What I particularly like about the way geopunk is using these is that it stops binary being used as a description for cisgendered, recognising that a great many trans men and women experience their genders as being just that, at one end of a continuum, just as cisgendered people do. This is important. Without this there is no way to express that concisely which is part of a tendency for all trans people to be pushed into a group in between male/female, regardless of whether they see themselves as fitting in there. Equally importantly it allows genderqueer to stand without it being compromised by the inclusion of binary trans people, allowing it to mean what it means and not become a catchall for everyone who is not cisgendered and cissexed. This is important if we really want to recognise and support the amazing variety of lived experiences people have as any time someone is pushed into a category they feel erases them we are denying their right to individuality and self definition.
So it’s all got a bit more complex but then, people are just that. Any reduction of nature to a binary by neccesity chops off and excludes things, nature is too fuzzy and wonderfully messy to fit into neat pairs of categories. To understand it, and ourselves, we need to allow for complexity within our simplifications and to always be aware that someone else might be simplifying when they use one of these terms, whether it is a trans term or a cis term. If these are all to be equally valid and fair to everyone then that goes in all directions, cis, trans, genderqueer, any of them.
So for clarity I can say that I am a binary identified, transgendered, transsexual woman, when I need to be particularly precise about exactly where I am on this web of interlocking terms, when simplifying for either convenience or wider points, I can say I am a trans woman. Equally I am still just a woman and a human being.
What the complex descriptions do is allow us all freedom to say exactly who we are without having parts of our identities erased. What the simple descriptions do is allow us all to remember what we have in common and where we can find points of intersection and common ground. I think both are important and I’m glad I have been reminded of this.
These really are well-written definitions and very helpful distinctions. And I agree that whenever you see an asymmetric use of language (like between trans and cis distinctions, as you note), hierarchy is at play.
Thank you for your comment Rachel. Sometimes I think that the issue some cis people have with the words is that they don’t think their identities can be as complex… but when one listens to them descibe themselves, they are just as rich and varied as any trans person’s can be. We are all complex interplays of aspects of these ideas
I’ve been thinking about all this, particularly in light of the discussion over at my blog, and I think I’m stuck.
My problem is that, while cisgender and transgender seem to offer nice parallels about identity versus assigned gender, cissexual and transsexual do not with the above definition. It seems like the definition needs to be changed to “…a person whose physical body (i.e. genitals, reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics), as far as they know, aligns with their assigned sex and does not desire to change their physical body.” (Emphasis added.) Otherwise, someone who is pre-transition can be both cissexual and transsexual, which seems to make cissexual a pretty useless term for discussing gender and sex.
For me, that change lets the other definitions fall into a nice axis, where someone can be cissexual and cisgendered (“normal” people), cissexual and transgendered (genderqueer), transsexual and transgendered (“normal” trans people), or transsexual and cisgendered (impossible? people who claim their no longer trans after transitioning?). There could then be a third, Z-axis (making the whole thing 3D) of male and female, which would then allow for a single point to represent whether someone accepts their assigned gender identity, desires to physically change their body, and what their stated gender identity is.
Thoughts?
Hey Rebecca, I think I see what you are getting at but… I’m not sure at the same time. I don’t read them the way you do… yes that would make them mirror. The only thing is what about cissexual people who do change their bodies to conform more closely to gender stereotypes through plastic surgery? If we say that cissexual means being totally at home in one’s body as a gendered being to the extent that one does not wish to change it at all, where then do we think of cis people who do? Your example helped me see what you mean. However I think you can read it another way. A pre transition person might indeed claim to be cissexual, if they are closeted or in denial. What is being hidden is that they are transsexual. So yes you do have a double identity there, a true one and a publically claimed one. I think also that relating it to transition might prove troublesome, in that there are people who are transsexual who might never transition, or might only partially, for all sorts of reasons to do with their life circumstances. At the same time they may be open about that to some people in their lives.
I also think you miss something in saying that genderqueer is always cissexual and that transsexual and transgendered are binary. Three of these four descriptors say nothing about the gender identities being asigned or claimed. It is perfectly possible to be transsexual and transgendered and genderqueer.
It’s interesting that you question whether transsexual and cisgendered is even possible, I did too. Then it occured to me that this is exactly where the autogynophile construction would sit. Interesting no?
I think it helps to see these not as points on an axis but as a network, a web, of points that might overlap in different ways. I feel that trying to pin them down as directly as you would like is difficult as they are fuzzy and they are taking words that already have histories and debates around them.
Does that change how you are seeing it at all?
It is perfectly possible to be transsexual and transgendered and genderqueer.
*raises hand*
Hmmm.
I’m still not clear on why my definition – perhaps with the further addition of “…to change their physical body away from their assigned sex,” or something along those lines – is not more exact than geopunk’s. It still seems that, without the parallel between cissexual and transsexual, of desiring to change or not change ones body away from one’s assigned sex, cissexual becomes a less useful (and less descriptive) term.
That is, geopunk’s definition of cissexual, as I’m reading it, allows one to be cissexual and transsexual simultaneously. As you say, a pre-transition (or closeted, or whatever) trans* person might claim to be cissexual; I certainly did at times. Going back to sexuality, one can claim to be straight and not be, but one can’t actually be straight and gay simultaneously – indeed, there’s a separate term (or terms) for that identity. But I think the terms cissexual and transsexual become less useful if they’re not distinct., and they are able to overlap.
(Perhaps I also need to ask geopunk. Any chance you’d be willing to weigh in with your thoughts?)
All that said, you’re right about genderqueer – being genderqueer isn’t mutually exclusive with being trans(whatever) and, as geopunk nicely demonstrated, I don’t get to decide what identities others can have in the first place. Rather, it seems like genderqueer would be more a result of where one lies on the gender identity axis. (Which, rereading the original post, I would have known had I read the definitions more closely!)
So, thinking back to my original axis, where does that leave cissexual and transgendered or transsexual and cisgendered? I think your point about the latter fitting autogynophilia is interesting… And I guess I’m being too narrow minded about the former – why couldn’t someone be comfortable with their physical body matching their assigned sex while still identifying as something other than their assigned sex? It’s presumptuous of me to assume that all trans people want XYZ, or experience their gender the same way I do.
Concerning pinning down the language or viewing things as an axis versus a network, I just really like language to be specific. I know the world doesn’t always work that way, and perhaps I’m trying too hard to shoehorn concepts into boxes that don’t really fit. But I find it illuminating to be able to visualize concepts as I’m describing, and have a tendency to try even when it may be to the detriment of the discussion… Sorry if that’s the case right now!
I totally understand about the visualising aiding comprehension
Plus graphs are fun! Plus it’s a really interesting way to conceive them.
I’m just loathe to see these things too rigidly defined… feels like someone somewhere might get caught on the border and get into difficulty. Also… I think that identities can overlap and be fuzzy at the edges, they are about people after all and people are rarely neat and not fuzzy in who they are. I’m not seeing how the two can be read that you could be cissexual and transsexual at the same time. Not saying it can’t be read like that, I just don’t see it myself
Is it not that the moment you say “Oh hai, btw, this body? Not right thanks! I’ll be transitioning it in some why, kthx!” you just stop being in one and slide over into the other?
Actually.. looking at it, I think perhaps that cisgender and cissexual both would benefit from having “assigned at birth” rather than just assigned. Is that helping?
I’d be interested to know what geopunk thinks too, being the author and all.
I rather like the addition of something like “…and does not desire to change their physical body away from their assigned sex” to the end of my definition of cissexual/cissexed, actually! Sounds more accurate to me.
I started really thinking about the difference between being cisgender and cissexed when someone brought up cissexed genderqueer folks in a conversation. My first internal reaction was defensiveness and a feeling of of “are you saying GQ folks are all cis?” but then I read through what that person was actually saying and realized, yeah, wait, I did in fact know many GQ folk that are certainly not cisgender but are cissexed, with a lack of any desire to physically transition.
Alright then, add it
Hey Mattie, thanks for including my definitions in your post.
I’m kinda surprised at how useful they turned out to be in discussions.
I’ve had a couple conversations about terminology with some people lately. It’s tricky business to try and nail down a definition for pretty much all the terms I described. When I started to write that FAQ, I didn’t intend to make it as extensive as it turned out. Originally I just wanted to spell out a few acronyms like FAAB/MAAB and some others that are also not so ubiquitous. I’m in a sort of continuous process of updating and re-wording my definitions, because as I read my FAQ over, I find that there’s probably better, less problematic ways to describe things.
Often, though, there is no entirely unproblematic way to talk about certain aspects of gender and identity. The issue of many cis people not being entirely comfortable in their gender roles (although still not identifying as GQ or trans), for example. I’m not one to listen to complaints of “cisphobia” or “cissecution” (*rolls eyes*) but it is important to note that just because all cis people are not entirely comfortable with their assigned gender, that doesn’t mean their cis privilege is nonexistent. Some cis folks might say that they do not expressly identify as cis and therefore they cannot be labeled cis, but they may need a reminder that many folks under the trans* umbrella do not actually self-identify as trans, either. It reminds me of white folks (and I mean 100% undeniably white folks, not mixed/PoC who “pass” as white) who try to deny their privilege by claiming they don’t feel white. (I know it’s not usually a good idea to compare oppressions, but…)
The language is continuously evolving and I’m eagerly curious to see what terms we will be using in ten or twenty years.