Thanks Dan.... you rock, this is so right on, at least to me....

@102

"Being a woman is not based on genitalia,"

Umm, yes. It is.

I'm human. This is because I biologically fit a certain taxonomic classification. I may wish I was a goat or an artichoke. I may eat thistles or ask for mulch in my morning coffee on either assumption. I may even honestly believe that I'm either thing in defiance of all the physical evidence.

But we have a word for people unable to accept physical reality, to deal with it on rational terms. We call them 'mentally ill.' If I have male genitalia, I am male, or if female, I am a woman. That's just reality, difficult as it may be for you to accept.

The reason to be Out as Gay, Lesbian, or Bi is because who you spend your time with, in a relationship, is relevant to society and the family. The reason to be Out as Trans is because you need to navigate a society that is still fixated on what's between your legs for many of life's transactions, down to where you pee.

There is no rational reason to be Out as a fetishist or furry or someone-who-is-attracted-to-personalities to anyone but those with whom you are intimately involved with. I want Adam and Steve to be able to adopt children and have hospital visitation rights, and so on. I do not need to know whether they prefer to use leather or vegan floggers in the bedroom, or whether Adam was more attracted to Steve's personality or his pecs when they first met. I don't need to know whether they are in a loving relationship that doesn't include sex, or how many porcupine costumes they own. I'm sure those things are very important to Adam and Steve, but they aren't relevant to the rest of us.

That's why LGBT is long enough as it is. Sure, you might tell your friends about your sexual mischief, if that's the kind of thing they don't mind talking about. But as far as legal rights go, those things aren't really relevant.

@105: I have to say I partially agree with you here. Gender IS based on genitalia. Key word "based". A preoperative male-to-female transsexual may have male genitalia, but should not be classified as "male" due to her feminine secondary sexual characteristics and her own psychological identity. Such a person would be classified as intersex due to possession of both masculine and feminine sexual characteristics.
If someone is physically one gender but psychologically the other, that IS a mental illness, one called gender identity disorder. There are two possible ways to treat it: either change the mind to match the body or change the body to match the mind. As it stands, only the second has proven effective, not to mention ethical.
I don't quite see why you seem so judgmental of transgender people, though. They don't like their current state, so they choose to change it. Do you have problems with people getting tattoos or piercings? Do you disapprove of people dyeing their hair?

facepalm @105: so it is only genitalia; & no room at all for those piddly things such as genes, hormones, or social influence?

yet again you revel in the fact that you really are a clueless jerk of a twit.

oh, and dropping the term taxonomy in an attempt to make yourself seem knowledgeable was really fucking weak.

oy.

@105 One of my closest friends was born biologically male, but these days what she has between her legs would prove to your four year old--or a gynocologist--that she is a woman and that you are a twit.

GLBTA. That pretty much covers what other people might need to know. As in: "I do/don't want to date that person because they are G/L/B/T/A. Everything else is personal detail that might be of interest to friends and family, but are TMI for the rest of us.

Also, Queer is a fine general and inclusive term for the GLBTA community.

@22 laughed out loud, children came running.

@76 actually the point of the term cis-gender is an interesting one. It *points out* that there is an unspoken assumption, and by forcing it out into the open, it makes you consider the wider spectrum of congruency (or lack thereof) between one's mental image and physical image.

And for that, as much as I dislike the neologism itself (cis? cis? *really*), that point is a very valuable one.

@91, firemen and chairmen come from a time when only men could hold those positions, so it makes sense to modify them since calling women in those fields men wouldn't be accurate. In linguistics though, we have something called prototypicality effects, meaning some referents of any word are far more conspicuous and salient than others. When we read or hear the word "woman", we think of a biological woman, someone born with a vagina, before we think of a transgendered woman -- and that's never going to change. That's just the way language and human thought processes work. Every word category has prototypical members and peripheral members, but it doesn't mean we change the prototype. That's why ciswoman will not catch on. It sounds ridiculous to anyone being honest because it's not linguistically sound.

@91, @119: While I agree "cisgendered" is ridiculous-- even though I'm a chemistry geek!-- I don't think prototypicality explains the absurdity. When you say "bird" I think of a robin before I think of an ostrich or a penguin, but that doesn't mean we don't have a word for "robin."

The absurdity lies in the lack of logical stopping point. Shall I start identifying as "bipedal" because I am not confined to a wheelchair? As some word that means "not polydactl" because I was born with ten fingers and ten toes? As "sighted" because my eyes work fine (err... with some correction)? There is an endless number of ways humans can find themselves outside the norm; do I need to explicitly call out my normality for every such instance?

I understand why (say) the blind might want to label me "sighted," and I don't even mind that designation-- I understand its purpose. But it's going a touch too far to expect me to internalize that label myself.

What is the acronym for REI fetish? :-)

Amanda@119 Are you a linguist? Because if so, I suggest you get a refund for your degree. Your argument about what is "linguistically sound" and how language works is absurd.

As an example, there was a time when "American" defaulted to a white American. When we read or heard the word "American", we thought of a white American, someone born in this country, before we thought of a person of color or an immigrant. We've managed to expand the concept of what an American is, however, and if you want to specifically talk about a white American you say "White American." To refer to other specific flavors of American, other adjectives may be slapped on there, but the default can no longer be assumed to be a white person who was born in this country. The same sort of change could occur with our terms for men and women. I doubt they will and I figure cis- will end up being one of those goofy little academic quirks that eventually gets forgotten, but there is nothing about the prefix that goes against linguistics or human nature, for fuck's sake!

@119 many people used to believe that "men" referred to both men and women, and many people fought the use of "firefighters," thinking that was a stupid change.

@119/121 no one here is saying that 'ciswomen' should replace most uses of the word 'women.' Just that if gender is the topic (or, say, what to do about transwomen in particular), 'ciswomen' becomes a useful word. I would be happy to go with "biological women" if that's what emerges. Certainly, cultural change is easier if done with words people know already.

Agreed with EricaP @125.

Be it cisgendered or whatever, it is useful to have a term for non-trans _when discussing trans issues_ as it is useful to refer to normative people as sighted when discussing blind issues.

"Natural" women do not need to internalize their cis-identity, nor does the word need to catch on in broader usage as its utility is fairly restricted to Trans topics.

Anyone who dislikes cisgendered can offer a better alternative.

@125/127: Yes, I don't mind using "cisgendered" in the context of discussing trans- issues. The other phrases I can think of-- "natural," "born," "normal," etc.-- sound more exclusionary than I intend.

I still think it sounds a little goofy, but that's because I keep picturing molecular structures and bad, nerdy jokes.

As I understand it, pansexuality is defined as attraction to people of *all* genders (men, women and everything in between, i.e. people who identify as genderqueer, androgynous or other things outside the gender binary) as opposed to bisexuality, which is defined as attraction to men and women.

Look. I don't think people should jump down other people's throats for not being psychically aware of their self-identification as regards gender or sexual orientation. But it seems to me that this comes down to a pretty simple case of manners.

You mistakenly use a pronoun or whatever in the presence of somebody who does not identify that way. Okay, fine. Not rude. You weren't to know. They then have the right to say "actually, I identify as ________". Not rude. They're just telling you what they prefer to be called.

If they jump down your throat? Rude. It was an honest mistake, and they shouldn't have gotten at you for making it. CUTS's conversational partner, for instance, was being rude.

If they say "actually I identify as _____" and you then go "what? but that's ridiculous!" then, er, that's rude. Think it's ridiculous? Think they're being pretentious? Fine. You go ahead and think that. But as long as all they are doing is asking you nicely to respect their choice of pronoun or orientation then you owe it to them to have the good grace to do just that. And if they're sniffy about you making honest mistakes, go talk to somebody else. Not everybody who identifies outside of the LGBTWTFBBQ umbrella is like that.

If you mispronounce someone's name and they correct you, is anybody in the wrong? No. If they yelled at you, they'd be being a jerk. If you carry on calling them the mispronounced name because you think it sounds nicer, then you are being a jerk. Same principle. Don't be a jerk.

You know, reading this thread made me realize that there is a disconnect between how I identify my sexuality to myself privately (I don't have one), versus publicly (heterosexual, because I've only dated men).

@121: Should we use E-Z notation instead of cis-trans?

There's a whole bunch we're forgetting that I'm sure are equally offensive... the NFOF fetish (no fats or femmes), TO (Tops only), SBXO ("Sorry, but X only" ... X = my birth or fetish-ized race), and of course the ILMDOAHHTMSSYCCDYLAL* people.

*(I left my door open having hog tied myself so you can come drop your load and leave)

Pan sexual? They only have sex with one kind of cooking implement?
Or pan sexual as in they only get off with guys dressed as fawns from the hips down?

We might as well add a D for douchebags, considering the doucheyness of most of these comments. Aren't we supposed to be different than the NOM assholes who marginalize people? Just because we're different and established now means that we have the same entitlement as the NOM people to look down on or mock other sexual minorities?SMH

@11 - I'm not sure I can manage anything other than "Your Serene Highness," but I'll try.

@ 96 - I agree in principle, but I'd say you forgot to take into consideration that some people might take their sexual/gender identity a bit more to heart than their job denomination (at least in this sort of forum). So they'd be more likely to want to be consulted on the former than on the latter. This, in fact, is precisely why we're having this debate today.

Besides, "fireman" doesn't really convey the nature of the job (what, a man made of fire? A man who sells fire?) I agree, there are plenty of other similarly constructed "-man" words in English, and we're all ok with them, but firefighter is a much better descriptor, and it has the added benefit of making them sound heroic. I don't see why they'd reject it (although I'll admit some people on this planet are more stupid than the physical rules that govern our very existence should allow).

When I first read "cisgendered", not knowing the root and thinking I'd figure it out by the context, I came to think that it was just another division of the transgendered spectrum. It took me a few instances of coming across the word to figure out that I was wrong, and I had to look it up. The context NEVER made it clear. "Cis" is such a jargonish prefix that no one outside the "in" group will get it, and no one from the "in" group will want to explain it - because if you don't already know it, you don't deserve an explanation (the purpose of any jargon being to establish group identity and to shut outsiders from the conversation).

So I agree with you on this, too: it's a useful word to discuss gender issues with other people who tend to discuss such issues.

I do hope, though, that the rest of the English-speaking word will come up with a better-sounding alternative.

@121, 129: But you are bipedal, sighted, etc. Those are terms that describe you. It's just a question of which attributes are central to your identity, and what context you're describing yourself in.

I suspect a lot of people are thinking that people must have one fixed set of terms that must be used all the time... these are all just useful adjectives, people, not Official Nametags.

@19 -- Personally, I don't find it biphobic but pretentious. "It's like being bi, only more flexible." Puh-leeze. It's like sci-fi fans that insist on using the alternate plural 'fen' because they're offended at the notion of being compared to fans of things outside their fandom (like sports).

I think where the folks insisting on linguistic contortionism miss the mark is failing to distinguish between what is required for analytical discussions and what is appropriate for colloquial discussions. Just because one uses ever-more-complex subformulations in an academic context doesn't mean that one can impose them on everybody else. I don't see mechanics hissing at people for not using the correct technical terms for different types of engine.

@ 141 - But slog is not an academic context. And yet, here we are using those words.

The good thing about "cis", though, is that all the cis-words will soon be shortened for practical reasons and we'll be able to call all those very boringly nondescript heteronormative, biologically-gendered non-queer people "cissies".

And by the way, I've worked with technicians - not mechanics, but same difference - and yes, they do laugh at us (behind our back) for not using the correct jargon.

@84: Your half right. It isn't the eskimos, it's the Sami People (Laplanders) in northern Scandanavia. They do, in fact, have hundreds of words for snow.

So, my joke still stands.

@ 143 - Sorry, since I was commenting on your claim about "eskimo" words, I am totally right.

Your joke does still stand, but just try not to mix up your northern populations when you tell it again. The value of a joke lies in the way it's told, after all. ;-)

@ 143 - And indeed (after checking) many of those Sami words would be equivalent to words like hail, slush, sleet, avalanche, snowstorm, etc, so they're not really words for snow per se.

Let's talk about the real topic here. A Little Night Music is one of the best shows ever. Sondheim is a fucking genius. If we're going to stick a P in the ever-lengthening initialism, it should stand for Petra.

@143: " the Sami People (Laplanders) in northern Scandanavia. They do, in fact, have hundreds of words for snow."

Not any more or less than Eskimos, or we do descriptive terms in English. You were wrong. Accept it. It's the same bullshit no matter what snow-dwellers you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_word…

"Pan-" means "all," but isn't it human-normative to suggest that pansexual means any human? It leaves out animals, inanimate objects, non-homo sapien hominids, fungi, plants, ghosts, and extraterrestrials, to name a few. Maybe "omnisexual" is more inclusive?

If you can't handle someone who uses acronyms, DTMFA.

@147: And here I was wondering why Mozart was especially gay...

No, 153, it means that you fuck goat people.

I <3 double parenthesis and you Dan Savage !
However...
I suppose I'm just an "A" or "SA" (Ally, not Asexual), although I am a freak (Batcaver/goth type, of the Cap Hill persuasion).
One might say a queer ... but I prefer women. (I gave men a go a long time ago, to be fair, it wasn't my cup of tea.)
I am often considered or seen as gay and with the exception of being sexually attracted to men or having the urge to have sex with men, I can seem pretty gay-sih (flamboyant, good at home decor, a love of fashion [shoes, for gawd sake, Imelda!], I am a hair dresser, etc. etc).
In my marriage I am definitely the female, what with my wife never really listening, always watching the bloody TV, not knowing how to keep a clean house (input other annoying stuff men do that I don't here).
What I'm asking is, can I (and those like me) have a "newly minted sexual identity" other than just a boring old "A"/"SA" (Ally,not Asexual)?
If you say no, I'll understand.

I thought pansexual was a way of signaling that you are down with trans and genderqueer folk, not this "I am attracted to people's personalities" pose in this comment thread. I thought that is what the "Q" is in the LGBTQ for, to capture the outliers.

Pansexual seems useful to me if you are saying, "I don't see gender as binary and I am attracted to various shades on the gender spectrum". To say you aren't attracted to people based on their looks AT ALL is to sell something I ain't buying.

@156: It's useful in the abstract, but when you use it to be exclusionist as the ASFP does, it's because you want to be counted as Unique and Special and go so far as to make arbitrary distinctions between the existing categories instead of trying to extend and unify them.

I guess it's what happens when someone read a blog from someone who once took a community college gender theory class and decided to frame their life around that one post.

"Queer" is a conscious, explicit rejection of normative identity labels. It's meaning is the same as the one in the dictionary: odd, unusual, out of the ordinary, not normal.

Also, "cisgendered" is an EXTREMELY useful term, because, at least within any community that acknowledges the existence of trans people, we have de-essentialized the concept of biological gender, and sometimes it's very helpful to specify that one is talking about men who were proclaimed "male" at birth.

Further, I dislike the distinction that's often drawn between "academic" and "colloquial" contexts. If academics isn't actually applicable to everyday life, it's an absurd waste of time and energy (the bigger issue seems to be the reticence of people to apply academic knowledge to their everyday lives, because it's often harder than simply going along with established norms, even if they're baseless or counter-evidentiary). I mean, the events of Bucharest throughout 1879 may have no bearing on MY daily life, but they doubtless contain some historical lessons about human behavior and can serve as examples of what to do or not to do in terms of municipal policy in some circumstances. Theoretical physics has advanced materials science (particularly in the nanotechnology field) and given us things like the microprocessor, and all of that is based on high-level mathematical theory (also necessary for things like the data-encoding schemes that allow us to transmit bits as - sometimes encrypted - modulated electrical or electromagnetic pulses). Linguistics enables cross-cultural communication and especially the more-effective teaching and learning of new languages (in fact, the applicability of most social science fields should be more-or-less self-evident).

As far as I've ever been able to tell "pansexual" basically just means "I am so sexually enlightened that the only thing I won't fuck is ignorant plebes like you."

I don't mean to be sex-negative; I'm all in favor of actually being something like "pansexual." I've just only ever heard that term used in a pretentious way. It might in fact be a better word than "bisexual" or "kinky" or "queer" for those who are really sexually open and flexible, but until it's more normalized, you need to hold off on just throwing it out there like it's some kind of impressive credential.

@156, 160: I've only heard pansexual used by bi people who want to indicate that they're trans- and genderqueer-friendly. I don't think it's pretentious, just a way of saying you're not a retard about gender.

There may be no P but there sure is a D. One big D placed upon not only those who seek to force acceptance of homosexuality but upon all the rest of the people who dont speak up about moral human nature.

@162: ha ha ha so clever! Try again, you're not nearly as funny as your Westboro Baptist brethren.

Wow, when did Loveschild come back?

If you weren't a woman, Loveschild, I would assume your origin story involved someone "forcing acceptance of homosexuality" on you, because that's kind of what you seem to think is involved here.

Allowing people who aren't you to marry other people who aren't you does not in any way equate to anal rape. Stop trying to insinuate otherwise. You're not as cute as you think.

Also, where the fuck have you been? It's been a long time since you showed your weirdly obsessed face 'round these parts.

+1 for #27

As an extremely boring straight male, all queerness seems to be a game where people whose sexuality is non-average like to argue about the rules and dress up. Also there are christians who make the game real and scary sometimes. But the queer game seems objectively as important as the spectrum of beardies at PAX this weekend REALLY LIKING some particular anime vs another one. Do what you want, but isn't there more to life?

I'm really into making it while a polly squawks "AWWRK! Pieces of Eight! Pieces of Eight!"

Perhaps I was exposed to too many late-nite reruns of Treasure Island. Nonetheless. And so there's another P. Now you've gotta decide whether to put the P's together or spread them. Spread them, Danno!

I think I'm gonna call myself a heteronormative cis-gendered queer, just to confuse everyone further