Reflections on the Term 'Cisgender'

The term 'cisgender', while occasionally useful in a value-neutral descriptive context, has become a point of contention, especially in discussions surrounding gender identity and social policies. This essay explores the origins, implications, and ethical considerations of the term 'cisgender' in modern discourse.

The Value-Neutral Term 'Cisgender'

As a chemist, the term 'cis' is familiar as a descriptor for isomers. This term offers a precise and value-neutral way to describe the spatial arrangement of atoms in a molecule. Similarly, in a more general context, 'cisgender' refers to individuals whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. This term serves as a definition that acknowledges the existence of various gender identities beyond the binary framework.

The Controversy and Ideological Impact

The introduction of the term 'transgender' to broadly describe individuals who identify with a gender different from their assigned sex has sparked significant debate. Transgender ideologues have claimed that being trans is not solely a delusion or a mental illness but an identity. This has led to the creation of the term 'cisgender' to denote those whose gender identity aligns with their assigned sex at birth. However, some argue that this terminology is a form of sophistry, as it implicitly acknowledges and defines the transgender experience as a reality that must be recognized and accommodated.

The Oddity and Unwarranted Use of 'Cisgender'

As a former chemistry student, the term 'cis' may evoke memories of challenging concepts and courses. The application of this term to describe individuals in a non-chemical context appears peculiar and unwarranted. People are not stereoisomers; they are multifaceted beings with unique experiences and identities. The adoption of 'cisgender' as a descriptor for non-transgender individuals introduces an unnecessary and strange prefix into common discourse.

Humanity and Normality

The use of 'cisgender' does not make sense when applied to one's non-transgender identity. Just as a person with OCD would not refer to others as 'non-OCD' to highlight the absence of their condition, individuals should not be labeled with a prefix to define the absence of a characteristic they do not possess. Normality is an inherent and universal concept that does not require a label. The labels 'cis' and 'trans' should reflect the identity of the individuals they describe and not be used to imply a lack of a particular experience.

Conclusion

The term 'cisgender' serves a specific purpose in academic and scientific contexts, but its extension into social discourse can be seen as gratuitous and controversial. It is important to recognize the nuances of gender identity while avoiding the creation of unnecessary labels that may marginalize or misrepresent individuals. The focus should be on understanding and respecting all identities, rather than forcing individuals into categories that do not accurately reflect their experiences.