3 ms·

I had to look up "cissexual". Here ya go: "In gender studies, cisgender and cissexual gender identities are two related types of gender identity where an indiv

by quesera 14y ago

I had to look up "cissexual". Here ya go: "In gender studies, cisgender and cissexual gender identities are two related types of gender identity where an individual's self-perception and presentation of their gender matches the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one's sex." "Antonyms: transgender, transsexual." There's something satisfying about the fact that, despite four years of Latin and possession of all the other tools I needed to get there on my own, the field of Gender Studies caught me off my game with a word that means "normal". "Normal" is a perfectly good word. I don't advocate the being of it, but I'm not afraid to say it... And somehow I'm sure this makes me an awful person.

ams6110 14y ago
The author is clearly not "normal" him/herself, so it's not surprising that he/she might have a problem using the word. Not that there's anything wrong with not being normal, but this person seems to be rather obsessed with gender issues and sexism.
- quesera 14y ago
  Right. The error is in conflating "normal" with "good", or "proper". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, sometimes there's no such thing. In fairness, if you spend a lot of time thinking about these sorts of things, you do need a specific word for "normal in exactly the way I mean", and "non-transsexual" is a piece of work. I was just having fun, and I know that's not really allowed.
ktizo 14y ago
To replace the word cissexual with the word normal in that sentence would have changed the meaning of the sentence, so the two words are not synonymous in that context. Also, the author is a man who started out physically as a woman. He is not cissexual, and is aware of the terminology and uses it, and I don't think that using a wide vocabulary indicates some fear of other words.
- quesera 14y ago
  Yes. I know, and I agree. I was just taking pleasure in the long definition couched in the opposite framing. I really do love language, and I think everyone should have their own.
michh 14y ago
"Normal" is indeed a perfectly good word, but not when you're talking about human beings. The fact that a majority of people is in a certain way does not make those that aren't that way abnormal. Just different in that particular aspect. Would you use normal as synonymous for heterosexual? That would have been totally acceptable 30-40 years ago, but not today. You could go as far as calling the women in tech abnormal, as the overwhelming majority is male ('We have 3 women and 30 normal programmers in our company').
roguecoder 14y ago
Normal is purposefully vague, all-encompassing and uncommunicative. If I'm describing my home setup I don't say "I run a normal server" I say "I run an Apache server". The first could be referring to hardware, software or a total lack of clue on my part. The second is actually descriptive.

by quesera 14y ago

ams6110 14y ago

The author is clearly not "normal" him/herself, so it's not surprising that he/she might have a problem using the word. Not that there's anything wrong with not being normal, but this person seems to be rather obsessed with gender issues and sexism.

quesera 14y ago
Right. The error is in conflating "normal" with "good", or "proper". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, sometimes there's no such thing. In fairness, if you spend a lot of time thinking about these sorts of things, you do need a specific word for "normal in exactly the way I mean", and "non-transsexual" is a piece of work. I was just having fun, and I know that's not really allowed.

ktizo 14y ago

To replace the word cissexual with the word normal in that sentence would have changed the meaning of the sentence, so the two words are not synonymous in that context. Also, the author is a man who started out physically as a woman. He is not cissexual, and is aware of the terminology and uses it, and I don't think that using a wide vocabulary indicates some fear of other words.

quesera 14y ago
Yes. I know, and I agree. I was just taking pleasure in the long definition couched in the opposite framing. I really do love language, and I think everyone should have their own.

michh 14y ago

"Normal" is indeed a perfectly good word, but not when you're talking about human beings. The fact that a majority of people is in a certain way does not make those that aren't that way abnormal. Just different in that particular aspect. Would you use normal as synonymous for heterosexual? That would have been totally acceptable 30-40 years ago, but not today. You could go as far as calling the women in tech abnormal, as the overwhelming majority is male ('We have 3 women and 30 normal programmers in our company').

roguecoder 14y ago

Normal is purposefully vague, all-encompassing and uncommunicative. If I'm describing my home setup I don't say "I run a normal server" I say "I run an Apache server". The first could be referring to hardware, software or a total lack of clue on my part. The second is actually descriptive.