Response to John Boyne: Why I support trans rights but reject the word ‘cis’

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-boyne-why-i-support-trans-rights-but-reject-the-word-cis-1.3843005


The crux of the "why I reject the word cis" argument is here:

I consider myself a man. For while I will happily employ any term that a person feels best defines them, whether that be transgender, non-binary or gender fluid to name but a few, I reject the notion that someone can force an unwanted term onto another.

I think there is a misunderstanding here that could be cleared up.  For most people, even most trans people, "transgender" is not an identity.  Male, female, nonbinary, two spirit, gender fluid --- those and many more are gender identities.  But the word transgender is an adjective on one of those identities, it is not an identity in and of itself.  If you are male, then that is your gender.  Most men don't refer to yourself day to day as a transman or a cisman, even if one of those labels might accurately describe you.  But if you are seeing your doctor, they most certainly need to know that information.

Let's step back and look at a different issue, electric bikes --- bicycles with a small (< 1hp) motor in them that helps the rider pedal, and that cuts out at 20mph.  E-bikes are popular for commuters because they make it easy to ride hills or long distances, and they are cheaper to own and operate than automobiles or public transit.  The overall package of e-bike plus rider has a similar mass, top speed and handling characteristics of any other bicycle, and they are widespread in Europe, China and elsewhere.

And yet, there is a lot of misunderstanding and downright hostility toward e-bikes.  The general public doesn't understand bikes of any kind and overestimates the danger of e-bikes.  E-bike riders are consistently demonized in the press as being dangerous lawbreakers.  Even many cyclists are hostile toward e-bikes.  Every square meter of public space in NYC is hotly contested, and bike paths are no different.  Some athletic cyclists have written that the bike paths were made for "their" recreational use, and they shouldn't have to share them with working delivery cyclists on e-bikes.  Yes, there are class issues here too.

So in the ongoing battles over NYC public space, some people first try to "other" e-bikes and then ban them from "their space."  It starts with terminology: they ride "real bikes," as opposed to those newfangled e-bikes.  If we accept e-bikes aren't "real" then they can be treated differently in the law.  For example, by banning them from bike paths.  As an e-bike commuter in NYC, I have even experienced the occasional unprovoked verbal or physical abuse, always from spandex-clad men who clearly resent my choice of vehicle.  They see my presence on an e-bike as a threat to their privilege or status.

The first step in addressing this issue is to come up with an appropriate term for what we used to just call a "bicycle."  Because if "e-bikes are bicycles," then we need such a term.  The language is evolving: "conventional bikes" and "regular bikes" are used at times.  But they are non-descriptive, as they are comparing themselves to some unknown form of "unconventional" or "irregular" bike.  The term "manual bike" is best because it is descriptive and non-judgemental.  Manual bikes and electric bikes are both kinds of bikes.

We've seen how the term "real bike" can be used pejoratively against people who ride an e-bike, and can lead to serious consequences.  Those pitfalls become much worse with gender identity.  I've had people ask me "are you a real woman," "are you a natural woman" and "what's your real name?"  These are akin to "is that your real parent or are you adopted?"  They suggests being transgender people is "unnatural," which is also insulting --- and dangerous.  It's also wrong: my brain is 100% natural, and that's where gender is located.

Like e-bikes, transness is new to the public discourse.  Now that the we understand that some people are trans and some are not, it is important to have terminology that distinguishes between those two sub-categories in a non-judgmental manner.  Terms like "real man," "regular man" and "natural man" are imply that transgender men are somehow less manly or less deserving of the term "man."  I suppose one could use the word "non-transgender," but that's awkward.  So we use the prefix cis, to provide cisgender as a symmetric to transgender.  And because of its symmetry, it respects the inherent equality of trans and cis people.  One is not better than the other, just different.

But cis was not invented by gender theorists, it has a long history as a prefix as the opposite of trans.  Look up "trans cis" in Google, and you will see articles on organic chemistry.  We've all heard that trans fats are bad for us; whereas cis fats are not.  The term cis fats is not as widely used, but it is still a term: look up "cis fats" in Google.

So part of supporting trans equality means using equal language.  And that means you must recognize that kind of man you are is no longer all of manhood.  There's nothing wrong with calling yourself a "man" and identifying as such.  But when you need to distinguish what kind of many you are, cis man is a way to do so that is respectful to trans men.

Remember that no one is born a man or woman; we become a man or a woman through a process of childhoold, puberty, adolescence, etc.  Trans and cis men are two kinds of men with different paths to manhood.  But one way or another, we all get to our adult identity and body configuration, and we don't need our gender history embedded in identity terms.

In conclusion...  I consider myself a woman, just like you consider yourself a man.  If you or anyone else insists on the term "trans" or "cis" in their gender identity, I suppose I will use it for them.  But I would really rather call you a "man" than a "cis man."  And I expect that you will call me a "woman," not a "trans woman."