[ SECRET POST #4908 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4908 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 59 secrets from Secret Submission Post #703.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"cis" is literally just a scientific term derived from latin like "trans". There's nothing weird about it.

[meadowphoenix]

yeah, i know my degree is in classics, lol. but those are terms of binary physical location in latin, and to be quite frank in the grand majority of Romantic and scientific derivations, which is clearly not what they're being used for here and the use suggests a strict binary which also seems wrong.

most definitions regarding this subject also include not just cis as oppositional to trans but the idea of directional personal identity w/r/t sex as a universal understanding of gender, and like, while I can understand that as the best way to express being trans that's obviously not a universal understanding of gender so.........not really sure what "cis" is trying to indicate.

[(Anonymous)]

Cis and trans are useful labels, right?

[meadowphoenix]

trans seems to be as it requires no binary perspective on its own. both together as oppositional terms? like i said, depends on the perspective, which doesn't seem clear or universal.

[(Anonymous)]

You don't have to think that trans and cis are universal, fundamental, binary truths to use them as functional labels! "Trans" and "cis" are the map not the territory.

[meadowphoenix]

Well I never said fundamental nor truth because we're talking about social constructs, but I did say universal, because people are using them as universal labels. Can you elaborate on what you mean? How are the terms functional if they're being used universally without actually seeing the terms that way? As for binary, I mean that trans doesn't need a separate defined contextual partner (that implied partner can be vague), but in use together they are completely contextual so that context needs a defined perspective.

I think your last sentence really encapsulate our disparity. Not only do you need some agreement on territory for a map to be useful, but a map absolutely requires a general understanding of the map symbols and the map's perspective.

[(Anonymous)]

That people misuse a term is not in and of itself enough to say that the term is useless. "Cis" and "trans" are useful labels to group together and talk about distinct parts of the phenomenon of human gender expression, and that's all they are, and that's all they have to be to justify their use. They are not universal labels - people do see them as universal labels, but that's a frequent mistake that people make about definitions and concepts in general, people look at a definition or a label and assume that it's a universal truth rather than an ad-hoc handle used to get a grip on a specific part of reality.

[meadowphoenix]

Well again I didn't say anything was useless entirely. But you seem to be saying perception is ultimately irrelevant to application? Am I mistaking you? Usually, the majority perspective is going to be the majority use and application, and other meanings will be secondary, so it's vitally important to engage with the most common perception of use imo. And maybe we're defining "universal" differently, but I'm not sure what the function of the label is if the label does not describe anything the group with the label might have in common, nor do I understand the function of oppositional labels where labels don't describe differences on the same axis.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you can define 'trans' and 'cis' in a pretty straightforward, reasonable, rule-of-thumb way as referring to different kinds of relationship that can exist between a person's body and their gender identity. And I think they're useful terms if defined in that way. They are broad categories that are different from each other, and a lot of different peoples' sense of identity can be sorted into one or the other, and people can identify common experiences based around those differences.

And I think the problems with 'cis' and 'trans' - that people perceive them as binary labels that divide the entirety of human experience and treat the labels as if they were the actual truth and not just convenient labels - that's a problem that people have with definitions in general. It's not something specific to those terms or concepts, so I don't think the problem comes from the way that they're defined.

[meadowphoenix]

I think I agree with you then in principal. As a descriptor of a relationship between body and gender identity within the context where that's being discussed as a way, of understanding gender, they are fairly handy. I just have never actually seen that as a limited praxis online or off nor have I ever seen it used that way by anyone active in the area. it's always the assumption that there is a universal understanding of the connection between body and identity. It's written that way, defined that way in guides, spoken that way by activists. It is more than possible I have limited experiences however, but I don't think I'm incorrect about general use. I don't think you can separate the convenience of the labels in proper context from their actual use. I think that's where you and I disagree.

[(Anonymous)]

What I am saying is, without specific reference to the trans/cis conceptual distinction, in general, conceptual labels and definitions are abstractions that should be used and treated as true insofar as they're useful; and in general, many human beings have a habit of regarding conceptual labels and definitions as though they are the truth and not useful abstractions, and we should reject this kind of essentializing but it should not stop us from using definitions and concepts where those concepts are useful.

Applying that framework to the specific concepts of trans-ness and cis-ness, I think that they are useful conceptual frameworks for everyday conversations about the relationship between biological being and gender identity. That people reify those concepts is wrong, but it's also not surprising. It's an inevitable hazard that arises in using any kind of conceptual abstraction and is not in itself reason enough to discard otherwise-useful conceptual abstractions.

[meadowphoenix]

So I think this is where we are centering two different things, or I just straight up disagree. I don't think it's useful to have a conversation regarding linguistic shedding. If a term is discarded that's because the conversations in which it has use are no longer happening enough for dissemination. If it has use in conversations, it will remain in those conversation in which it has use.

I don't think our conversation is really discussing the specifics of where "trans" and "cis" are useful, but I do not think you can say they are useful in "everyday conversation". Far be it for me to want another conversation on linguistics, but that's such a unspecific term to use when we're talking about forsaking needing terms to be universal and it goes to my problem with merely deciding that something is useful somewhere in response to questions of definition. I don't actually know if we are speaking in common. I don't actually think we are thinking about the same type of "everyday" conversation. And since I am not talking about discarding, I'm not sure why it's relevant that the terms are useful in some limited context, if that's not the context in which they are being used.

[(Anonymous)]

In my understanding, simply having a lable that means "not trans" means there's something besides "trans" and "normal". It provides a useful indicator when these conversations come up, that's all.

[meadowphoenix]

on a basic level, there's no "that's all" to human social terms, but on a more complicated level, unless you have actually defined what "cis" is indicating, you have not actually exchanged anything for "trans" and "normal" though I agree you need something that doesn't center the traditional way to gender. on a linguistic level, "cis" does have a social connotation of "normal" because "cis" indicates the primary operational perspective and on a frank level, these terms are begin used to define social experiences so it's wildly disingenuous to pretend they are merely oppositional in conversation.