A few weeks ago I watched a lecture where the speaker used the term “cis-male”. I had never heard that before, so I googled it to check what it meant. Much to my surprise, it means a person who was born as a male and identifies as a male. Oh. So, uh, a male?
It was a pretty powerful statement to me on the current standards of society that we need a new special term for something that just is what it is. As if we now need to specifically clarify that what you see really is what you get, rather than being able to rely on the assumption that the default in a given situation will be that what lies before us is indeed what lies beneath. My pen is indeed a pen and not a reindeer; therefore it is a cis-pen. That body of water in my backyard is not a vacuum cleaner, so I guess we can now call it our cis-pool…
This whole idea bothers me because words matter. When I order a winter coat online I don’t want to have to read a 47 page disclaimer to understand whether it is actually a tablecloth. I expect it to have two sleeves, a zipper, and be warm enough to get me through a chilly season. If we as a society can’t agree on certain basic definitions as a starting point for discussions, then things devolve into chaos.
And obviously that leads us into touchier, less politically correct, areas.
I want marriage to mean what it has traditionally meant, not because I want to stand in the way of people who love each other being together or having certain rights, but because the word “marriage” refers to a very specific thing and that’s what it means. A man is a man, not because I am full of a hate, or a bigot or homophobe or anyone a phobe, or whatever the term du jour is- and I and I most certainly don’t ever ever advocate or condone any violence or mistreatment of anyone , but because, again, a man is a very particular sequence of DNA and you either are that or you aren’t.
There are already plenty of laws on the books for how humans should treat humans. If you want more, advocate for more. But those laws need to deal with actions and behaviours. Because when it comes to playing fast and loose with language, to the point where I have to ask for a mission statement about every word you say, and issue a decoder ring with every sentence I utter, it is the tower of babel all over again.
And that didn’t end so well the first time.
oakparkhatesveggies 
Mar 20, 2017 @ 03:34:55
What is marriage? To me it is a public declaration, in the form of a gathering together of friends and family with someone officiating it, that two people are committing to sharing their lives with each other. It isn’t about procreation, because post-menopausal and infertile people get married. So, what is it that requires marriage to be between a man and a woman?
I don’t want language to be made more complicated either, but you are defining marriage differently to me, I think. So maybe we need the term cis- to identify where on the spectrum one sees oneself.
Mar 20, 2017 @ 11:54:50
Michelle-
Thank you for your considered response. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Yes, it seems that we have different definitions of marriage, and that’s just fine. I don’t look to impose my values on you, nor on anyone else. Again, I’m not advocating for who anyone should or shouldn’t be in a relationship with, who anyone would have rights to be with, who should be whose next of kin, be on whose insurance policies, get whose property, or any other myriad private decisions. Your stuff, your business. For the most part I look at marriage as a religious covenant anyway (a discussion perhaps for another time), and at least in my case, that’s between me and my God. I don’t want to interfere in your private life and I would accord you or anyone else the same respect and dignity I would want afforded to me. Just to reiterate, the only thing I was talking about was defining a term in the way it has been defined by Western society throughout most of recent history. That’s it.
Mar 20, 2017 @ 17:54:41
You say: “Just to reiterate, the only thing I was talking about was defining a term in the way it has been defined by Western society throughout most of recent history.”
OK, fine, except we are no longer confined to just Western society, and history is continually evolving/progressing. In fact, the term “heterosexual” was not even a term 100 years ago. As we evolve, so does our language.
As for this: “a man is a very particular sequence of DNA and you either are that or you aren’t.” You are mistaken. XX and XY sequences are not the only known genders. There are actually several (six, if I remember correctly). There is a whole category called “intersex” which refers to those who are either born with ambiguous genitalia, or who discover later in life that they have different sex chromosomes than presumed based on their physical manifestation. This is why we have now started to use the prefix cis- before male or female. Just as referring to your pen as simply a pen might get you any of a number of pens – felt, ballpoint, gel – referring to any male, be they cis or trans, as just male is just not specific enough. Additionally, since we are referring to human beings, it is also offensive.
Mar 22, 2017 @ 10:50:24
Anon-
Not sure why referring to any type of person who is wanting to put themselves across as a male as “just male” would be offensive. I thought that was exactly what they were trying to be. Guess this is further proof that I just don’t get it…
In my opinion, less categories for human beings is a step forward, not a step backward. Again, just my two cents.
Apr 03, 2017 @ 21:00:27
Many of my friends are varied degrees of religious, in the Christian end of things. I myself am a pagan. My friends and I have vastly different views on marriage, however I’ve found this easy workaround that we all seem to at least compromise with, and in fact can help to understand one another’s points of view.
Marriage, as a secular concept – two people who choose to engage in a legally binding non-religious union (civil unions, married at the court house, etc.)
Marriage, as a religious concept – two people who choose to engage in a spiritually binding union in accordance with their specific faiths, religions, or other spiritual traditions (the ceremonial aspect, in keeping with the couples religions or spiritual beliefs and traditions – be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, or otherwise.)
The difference between the two, to me, is that the Secular Marriage encompasses everyone. Straight, lesbians, trans, gay, doesn’t matter. If it’s legal, then they can marry. Religious Marriage, however, still abides by the specific traditions of faith. In Christianity the view of marriage is that it is between a man and woman only. In many sects of paganism, it is between men and women, women and women, men and men, trans and trans, trans and anyone. Anyone and anyone (so long as they are of legal age of course).
When engaging in conversation with my Christian friends, we choose to make the distinction between whether it is secular or religious, and when religious, what religion. It makes the conversations flow smoother, but also opens the door for more natural and less confrontational discussion of things we may not understand.
While I agree that less categories is a step forward, I don’t wholly agree with it. Rather, I feel it depends on the context and subject matter. As with my friends, we’ve done this with the topic of marriage. However when it comes to “male, female, cis-this, cis-that” it’s harder to do. Mainly due to the social climate currently. There is no non-offensive way around it, I’m afraid. Even if you take the approach of biological science, you’ll still catch flack. Personally, what I do is make the distinction between if I am talking about biological sex and gender identity. 9 times out of 10, if someone is using the term “cis” they are talking about gender identity which is in itself an entire other can of worms.
I’m no expert by any means – and it’s a hot button subject. One that many people, even those who claim to be experts, don’t actually fully understand and are unwilling to give clear and understandable answers to.
I do appreciate your admission, right from the start, that maybe you just don’t get it. Most people don’t either.