Cis and trans binary

[Tina_gm]

Transgender in itself is not a gender identity. It is a description of someone who has an identity that is at least partly opposite their birth gender. Dual gender, gender fluid.... those could be considered gender identity. Someone who is TS has only an identity that is opposite their birth gender. CDers are technically in the transgender spectrum. Whether one considers themselves to be transgender or not is entirely up to them, and I don't think most here or anywhere are going to put up much of a concern whether a cder considers themselves to be TG or not. I personally do consider myself to be TG. I do not CD to be feminine, I CD because I am feminine. I stop at CDing because transition is just too much for me. I have an identity that internally I feel I am close to a woman, or I relate to them, I am not fully a woman. I do not consider myself to be TS. I may get frustrated at times not being one. Not all the time, and there are times where I can be the male I was born as without a lot of difficulty.

[PaulaQ]

Furthermore, telling people that they are transgender when they don't want to own that identity is kind of treading down the same road as other kinds of misgendering. Same with calling people who you decide are cisgender cisgender who don't accept that they are cisgender. You are misgendering the cisgendered :P.

...
I'm not going to be precious about it, but I just don't think that the current wider understanding of transgender really includes occasional crossdressers like me.

The reason many of us include both crossdressers and drag queens is two fold:
1. We include gender identity OR gender expression not matching societal norms as falling under the umbrella term, "transgender". Gender expression matters because no one can verify what your identity is, from a practical standpoint. But people can observe your gender expression. So crossdressers, and drag kings/queens fall under the umbrella.
2. We include such people, CDs, DKs, DQs and others because separating them out and declaring them categorically "cisgender" leads to problems:
2.a - many CDs, DKs, and DQs discover what they are experiencing is about gender identity, and they transition.
2.b - a pre-op, pre-HRT transsexual who is presenting as the opposite gender is, practically speaking in terms of civil law, no different than a crossdresser
2.c - there are non-op, non-HRT trans people. Other than the amount of time they spend presenting as the opposite gender, there is really no difference, from the standpoint of laws, between these people and CDs.

I am asking you, I guess, to consider that your compulsion to present as the opposite gender makes you somewhat different than everyone else, at least in their mind, if they knew about it. Also, identifying under an umbrella term like "transgender", is helpful for political purposes. For example, I DO NOT WANT laws that require a trans person in transition to show a letter from a doctor in order to use the restroom matching their gender identity. Practically speaking, this means lumping y'all in the same bucket as us. (And this isn't such a stretch - some of you WILL transition, you just don't know it yet.) I have no doubt you don't identify as a woman. I'm definitely not saying you do, even if you use the umbrella term "transgender". Also, we all share some common problems. If a transphobic person notices someone that looks like a man in a dress, and decides to attack them (this happens, way more often than you'd think, believe me), they aren't going to NOT beat you up just because you are a crossdresser as opposed to a transsexual. And likewise, as I mentioned, things like restroom usage, stuff like that. You don't want to go into the men's room as a non-passable CD or TS while presenting as a woman.

Admittedly it stops being a strict binary and becomes a kind of hierarchy but you know what I mean hopefully.

A lot of us are fighting any type of "hierarchy." I don't think someone who requires transgender related medical care is any better nor any worse, than someone who's "just a CD." We want all of us to have civil rights, and to be treated with dignity.

BTW, my point isn't to label you, or anyone else on this forum as cis or trans anything. As a broad category, I think it makes sense to include CDs as "transgender", and to note the differences between people like you and people like me. (Believe me, there are plenty.) Personally, I don't think the term "cisgender" is a very good description for most of the people on this forum, mainly because *other* people aren't going to agree that's what you are. So why does that matter? I mean, I always make the point that YOU define who you are, not others. And this is true. However, the world is what it is, and it definitely notices you are different and (mis)treats you accordingly. If nobody cared that you wore a dress sometime, or that I had wanted to transition as a kid, we wouldn't need these stupid labels at all, really.

[Teresa]

TinaMC,
When I joined this forum I wasn't aware of how complex it is, I still don't fully grasp all the labels but like it or not we do need them. I need them to understand myself so I can explain it to other people.
PaulaQ is very knowledgeable on most of these issues , she's been there and suffered her way through a very tough road , she helps many people on and off the forum , I for one am glad to have known her, occasionally we do differ on some points but this one is something I wouldn't ague with .

[char GG]

This is an odd thread. Labels are just a frivolous way of separating ourselves into groups. I don't really feel it's necessary to label myself as "GG" except for the purpose of this forum. I don't like labels for people of color, gender, religion, nationality, trans, etc. We are all people, members of the human race. Do we need to be labeled? I understand maybe for the purposes of helping members on this forum, it might be necessary to label ones-self as "trans" but out in the world - not really necessary. Labels don't make people special or less than special. If they are identifying as a man or a women, they are people no matter what gender they are. The amount of effort that has gone into threads that talk about labels is bordering on excessive.

[PaulaQ]

@char GG

Labels serve some useful purposes, although I agree with you that they are frequently abused. Ironically enough, one of the ways in which they are abused (and I am certain you aren't doing this, but others do), is to pretend "I don't treat people differently, therefore I don't need labels."

The trouble with this is that in situations where there are groups of people, some a huge majority, others, small minorities with differing needs or circumstances, it becomes very easy to erase the existence and needs of the minority group.

For example:
If a group of people with a disability claims "We are physically unable to enter a building that I am required, by law, to enter from time to time," if we don't use labels, there is no way to talk about these people and their special needs. And if we don't talk about them, we definitely aren't going to fix the building so that they might gain physical access to it. This is a problem!

My example isn't farfetched. While I think we can all agree that everyone needs to be treated with equality and dignity and fairness, different people have different needs, and pretending that everyone is the same puts people who just aren't the same at a big disadvantage. An example of this is #AllLivesMatter - a slogan like that, itself a sort of label - erases a group of people who are having a problem by lumping them in with a group of people who don't have that problem.

As second reason that labels matter sometimes is that they can, when used by an individual to define themselves, help that person understand themselves, and help that person communicate with others who they are. For example:
Joe: "Paula, you are with a man now, but you've always been with women in the past! What's up?"
Paula: "That's easy Joe, I'm bisexual."

I've suggested labels like "gender fluid" to people who've told me they are struggling to understand their gender identity. I usually give them several, explain them, and tell 'em to try 'em on for a while, and see if any of them fit. This is surprisingly helpful to people who's identities are not the most common.

I hope this helps explain why someone like me, who really doesn't like labels, nevertheless really spends a lot of time talking about them.

[Jazzy Jaz]

I agree Paula. As far as cisgender, I dont view it as not being something, as not being trans. Rather, it IS being something. Being cisgender is 'being completely aligned with your biological sex'. Being transgender is 'being unaligned to any extent with your biological sex' and being TS is specifically 'being completely the opposite of your biological sex'. Though 'being something', TG is an umbrella term that describes basically any state of internal being that is not completely aligned with your biological sex, while both TS and cisgender describe very specific states of being. Like gendermutt said, genderfluid, bigender, dualgender etc are more specific states of being that fall between cisgender and TS. The reason a blanket term is needed (TG) is because of what Paula said about majority/minority. The amount of people who are unaligned with thier biological sex (CD, bigender, dualgender, genderfluid, etc and TS) combined are still only a tiny fraction of the human population. Even with us combined, the people who completely align with thier biological sex totally outnumber us and so although our more 'specific' identities are different from each other, it is useful to be able to differentiate all of us from those who are cisgender when neccesary. I think its useful to have the specific terms of cisgender, genderfluid, CD, bigender, dualgender, etc and TS, as well as having TG as a blanket term for us gender/sex minority folks and having 'humanity' to describe ALL of us. As far as some of the public maybe not considering CDers TG, just because many people consider tomatoes to be a vegetable doesn't mean they all of a sudden "stop" being fruit.

[bcpmax]

Ohh I love this question! I too enjoy thinking about gender and gender theory.

In her announcement earlier this month Lilly Wachowski wrote

But these words, "transgender" and "transitioned" are hard for me because they both have lost their complexity in their assimilation into the mainstream. There is a lack of nuance of time and space. To be transgender is something largely understood as existing within the dogmatic terminus of male or female. And to "transition" imparts a sense of immediacy, a before and after from one terminus to another. But the reality, my reality is that I've been transitioning and will continue to transition all of my life, through the infinite that exists between male and female as it does in the infinite between the binary of zero and one. We need to elevate the dialogue beyond the simplicity of binary. Binary is a false idol

Prior to reading this I had been attempting to figure out why I the "trans- / cis-" dichotomy made me uncomfortable; Reading this piece caused my "Aha ha" moment.

I had been, as you seem to be, wrestling the idea that existence of "trans-/cis-" identities assumes a gender binary; In my line of thinking, the prefix "trans-" means "across something" and the word "across" implies there is some boundary to be crossed; A boundary creates two sides ergo binary.

Even if "trans-" didn't imply a specific boundary (Trans- continental doesn't mean there is a boundary in the middle of the continent), It does imply the existence of only two valuable positions; "trans-" as a term that at the least devalues the "middle" in favor of the extremes, and in the worst case denies the middles existence.

I don't think this attribute of the term "trans", is inherently problematic; I'm thoroughly convinced there are many people whose identities are well described by the terms "transgender" or "transsexual". I feel the problem is the fact that the dominant terminology is itself a new form of binary; A "trans-cis binary" which serves to reinforce the "male-female" binary.

Isn't this all labels? Is this worth getting all worked up over?
I think yes, for both questions. This is purely about labels and language; But language and language are important. Language is the limiting factor on thought, and idea that cannot be expressed in language cannot be thought; An identity that cannot be described does not exist. No one's identity should be denied existence.

People with non-binary identities, of which I consider myself a member, are devalued by the dominant "trans-/cis-" "male/female" binaries. I agree with Lilly Wachowski;

"We need to elevate the dialogue beyond the simplicity of binary. Binary is a false idol"

or maybe I'm wrong.

[Mayo]

Cis - without giving any more privilege than it being the 'default' position - is just one point in 'gender space' and all the different ways of behaving that are not cis are - more or less by definition - trans. So you can be neutrois, agender, dual-gendered, genderqueer, genderfluid, intersex, fully opposite how you were identified at birth, etc. Many of these options are mutually exclusive to varing degrees so they can't all be in the same part of 'gender space'. The 'trans umbrella' includes most if not all of the non-cis points, while TS/TG includes a smaller subset. 'Non-binary' is another partly overlapping group, and so on.

[PaulaQ]

The cis / trans "binary" really doesn't have anything to do with the gender binary.

cis: gender identity and gender expression largely aligns with sex assigned at birth & societal norms
trans: gender identity or gender expression largely misaligned with sex assigned at birth & societal norms

by "largely misaligned" I mean different enough to cause mental, psychological, emotional, or social problems. It hurts to be misaligned.

The reason this doesn't reinforce the gender binary is because there are really many genders.

I understand the points Lilly is trying to make. The words "transgender" and "transition" have come to take on much the same sort of meaning that "transsexual" had - a transgender person who's gender identity doesn't match their assigned at birth sex, but is HIGHLY aligned to the societal norms of the gender binary, i.e. trans women are women, and trans men are men. A lot of us who are activists fight these notions - we want to be inclusive. This is particularly important to me, because I know that it is difficult enough for most people to understand someone like me - and I'm just a woman. Someone who is non-binary faces a lot of struggles because there is no societal template for who they are, or how they are supposed to behave. Legally there is often little recourse for such people but to choose a gender that doesn't fit them, but is the least painful of the two choices they have. This is awful! I know people who face these struggles. Courts and legal authorities are frequently nastier to them than they are to me. Anyway, please believe me when I tell you my intention, and that of many others in the activist community (both trans and bi activists, interestingly enough), isn't to erase anyone's identity. The majority of us, in my opinion, have no desire to do to non-binary people what has been done to us. There are definitely trans people who DO NOT feel that way, and who won't treat you well if you aren't highly aligned to the gender binary. All I can tell you is that in the support group I run, and the other activists I work with, such attitudes are not welcomed.

As for the term "transition", I don't really like it. It is fitting, in a way, but it doesn't really mean what people think it means. It's the term we have though.

[missmars]

Cis / Trans binary is not true. There are questioning peoples.

[Teresa]

Tina,
Just a point about the CIS label , I know it's latin for the same side but I would prefer them to refer to a person as natural gender, it may not mean quite the same thing but its' a much nicer term to describe someone. My natural gender is male with a female trait or overlay.

As for your question I'm afraid you lost me, I'm with Angie on this one maybe just dress and enjoy it, let someone else have the brainstorm !!

[ReineD]

I've been thinking about the sort of criticism of the socially constructed gender binary,

I don't believe that gender is a social construct. There are people who most definitely identify as men and those who most definitely identify as women, no matter where they live, how they were raised, etc. In fact, this describes the vast majority of world population. If you are referring to people who are born as one sex but transition to live as their target gender, then they are decidedly one side of the binary or the other. You will be hard pressed to find a transitioned MtF TS who says "I am not a woman", or a transitioned FtM TS who says "I am not a man".

There are also people who are more fluid and who either recognize themselves as fluctuating between the two genders or they feel all the time a combination of both, and for whom gender is not binary (either/or male/female) but is rather a combination.

There is no such thing as a cis/trans binary. Binary means the number 2 (in bits, this means 0s and 1s and does not include .5 ). And so because there are cis-people (the male/female binary) and there is also a small number of people who fall outside of that in various ways, this makes the sum total of identities more than the number two ... which negates the term "binary". Maybe if you want to include all the gender-identities you can call it the gender ternary (3): male, female, and other.

Back to constructs, gender roles are indeed constructs because they do change from culture to culture and throughout times. It wasn't too long ago that a woman's gender role was to stay home and raise kids. This isn't the case any more. Also, throughout history there have been times and cultures when women did not compete in sports for example, but they have in other times and places. This does not affect the fact they are women. And certainly, clothing doesn't define gender. Most women in North America wear pants nowadays and there is no way these women identify as men nor do they believe they are crossdressing. Also, many crossdressers crossdress and they still identify male.

If gender roles do form part of your definition of "transgender", this isn't really valid in today's Western society since both men and women share the same roles. We'd all be "transgender" then. Wives and husbands both need to work and they both share the household chores and nurture the kids. But, if you go into the far reaches of a country like Afghanistan, for example, where women cannot go out alone without a man, where they cannot drive, where (as far as I know) they must stay home and raise kids, then in this situation a man who behaves like that would be crossing a gender barrier even if he didn't dress like one.

A few years ago, common usage for the word "transgender" was anyone who crossed any gender barrier: FtM, MtF, drag queens, genderqueer, middle-pathers, crossdressers, etc. In our Western society this mostly meant wearing clothing and adopting the presentation that is customary for the opposite sex, for example, women going to a barber and having hair cut like a man's and buying their clothes in men's stores (not women wearing women's pants), and vice versa for men. But, the word has shifted these last few years and now, when the media reports on transgenders they are mostly referring to people who transition (who have the gender identity opposite from their birth sex and not a fluctuating-identity or a combination-identity) or what we in this forum refer to as "transsexual" (according to the forum's section titles). There are also people who do purposely defy all notion of binary gender (they do not solidly adopt either being male of female), but I think this is referred to as genderqueer ... unless there is a newer, more popular term now.

To the people who say there is no such thing as a gender binary, then I agree. There is a gender ternary (male, female, other), although the "other" is very small and is under the radar in most people's day-to-day lives.

And last ... the word "transgender" can also describe a person's life path rather than their identity. By this I mean that a person can use the term to describe they were born as one sex (and raised as its corresponding binary gender), but have transitioned and now identify and live as the other sex (and corresponding gender), even though they do identify solidly now as either a man or a woman.

So the conclusion is: People should stop using the word "transgender" because it means so many different things to so many different people. lol. Best to come up with more specific terms, even if it means using a sentence.

[Tracii G]

When I hear gender binary in a discussion I usually turn my ears off because someone is trying to act like they have all the answers or quoting something they read in a book or in an online article.
Funny part is science doesn't have the answers and all science is is a group of people with an unproven theory on this subjet they are trying to sell.

[ReineD]

This shouldn't prevent people from wanting to have discussions. Most people do like to use accurate words to describe who they are, especially when we get into the trans realm which is more complex ... it has more nuances and layers than just plain male or female.