I saw and I respect self-identifications. I get what you're saying--again the marking of the unmarked. My concerns are with other ways in which the term has normalizing potential in taking a variety of gender experiences of varying degrees of privilege and lack thereof, and grouping them into the category of the gender unproblematic.
Yes, most, if not all of the usage of the term cisgender I have seen has been as binary to transgender. Transgender is a term under debate. I would like to see cisgender be constructively debated more, as well, to better uncover the fissures in so-called normative gender identities, and who is included and who isn't. What I don't want is one more fucking uncomplicated binary--the one we have for gender already is bad enough. Where did you acquire your understanding of the terms as geographical?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-06 04:49 am (UTC)I saw and I respect self-identifications. I get what you're saying--again the marking of the unmarked. My concerns are with other ways in which the term has normalizing potential in taking a variety of gender experiences of varying degrees of privilege and lack thereof, and grouping them into the category of the gender unproblematic.
Yes, most, if not all of the usage of the term cisgender I have seen has been as binary to transgender. Transgender is a term under debate. I would like to see cisgender be constructively debated more, as well, to better uncover the fissures in so-called normative gender identities, and who is included and who isn't. What I don't want is one more fucking uncomplicated binary--the one we have for gender already is bad enough. Where did you acquire your understanding of the terms as geographical?