It seems to me that “non-trans” would work just fine. Insisting that we should have a special word for non-trans people is
A) seems silly as to have a word for people who are not albinos or having not red hair.
B) it separate society on two classes cis and trans. As if it is something fundamental. I would rather people would not care if you are trans or not, the same way they do not care about the color of your hair. Insisting on the term cis goes against trans people acceptance by society.
Saying all that, I see nothing wrong with the use of the term in specialized scientific literature.
“Non-gay” is an accurate way to describe straight people but we still have words for straight. We also have words for non-red-haired; blond, brunette, etc. “X and non-X” is a much harsher separation than “X and Y”.
We do not have a word for non-red-red haired. We have words for different hair colors, but not a word “all colors except red”. In an age when there is understanding that gender is non-binary and often fluid, to insist to have only non-trans people to be called a particular word is separating trans from everyone else.
I’m not sure you’re making the point you think you’re making.
Brunette means brown hair (ie not redhead), straight means attracted to the opposite gender (ie not gay), cis means identifies as gender assigned at birth (ie not trans), but none of those are binary options. You could be blond, you could be bi, you could be non-trans-identifying non-binary. The existence of terms for one state does not imply a binary, but “X and non-X” is literally as binary as you can get.
Brunette does not mean not redhead. If it were true, then not-brunete would mean redhead. Gender is not assigned at birth. Sex is.
And the trans and cis exactly implying just two options.
I’m not sure how many more examples you need to understand this, it’s not exactly a difficult concept.
Two is not one, “not one” does not mean two.
Blue is not red, “not blue” does not mean red.
Cat is not dog, “not dog” does not mean cat.
USA is not Canada, “not Canada” does not mean USA.
Water is not air, “not air” does not mean water.
I am not you, “not you” does not mean me.
Brunette is not redhead, “not redhead” does not mean brunette.
Straight is not gay, “not gay” does not mean straight.
None of these are binary options, just as you yourself have acknowledged the existence of non-binary gender identification. Boolean logic only makes sense for binary options.
Trying to enforce “trans and non-trans” as the only two terms is trying enforcing a binary that you have admitted does not exist.
And the trans and cis exactly implying just two options.
I don’t understand, are you saying you think there isn’t just two options here? Because either you identify with the gender assigned to you at birth, or you don’t. You’re either transgender, or cisgender.
You keep talking about not having a term for “not redhead”, but I don’t see why you’re focussing on that trait specifically. We don’t have a word for not redheaded because we don’t need one - language dynamically evolves to fill niches when they arise. Another commenter used straight as an example, do you have an issue with that as a term?
I don’t understand, are you saying you think there isn’t just two options here?
Of course! There are queer, there are asexual, Intersexual, two-spirit and so on.
You keep talking about not having a term for “not redhead”, but I don’t see why you’re focussing on that trait specifically. We don’t have a word for not redheaded because we don’t need one
It is precisely because we do not need to be focused on whether a person is trans or sic, splitting people just in two groups is not needed. Especially when trans people who actually transitioned are below 2% of the population. And as we don’t have word for non-readheaded because we do not need one, I am arguing that we do not need the word for non-trans either. There is nothing special about being non-trans that we need a separate word for that.
Another commenter used straight as an example, do you have an issue with that as a term?
For the same reason, straight is on of many categories, the others being LGBTQIA2S+… so yes, we need stright, otherwise you would have to say “not gay, not lesbian, not bi, not trans, not queer … +”. That’s rather mouthful to say.
It seems to me that “non-trans” would work just fine. Insisting that we should have a special word for non-trans people is
A) seems silly as to have a word for people who are not albinos or having not red hair.
B) it separate society on two classes cis and trans. As if it is something fundamental. I would rather people would not care if you are trans or not, the same way they do not care about the color of your hair. Insisting on the term cis goes against trans people acceptance by society.
Saying all that, I see nothing wrong with the use of the term in specialized scientific literature.
“Non-gay” is an accurate way to describe straight people but we still have words for straight. We also have words for non-red-haired; blond, brunette, etc. “X and non-X” is a much harsher separation than “X and Y”.
We do not have a word for non-red-red haired. We have words for different hair colors, but not a word “all colors except red”. In an age when there is understanding that gender is non-binary and often fluid, to insist to have only non-trans people to be called a particular word is separating trans from everyone else.
I’m not sure you’re making the point you think you’re making.
Brunette means brown hair (ie not redhead), straight means attracted to the opposite gender (ie not gay), cis means identifies as gender assigned at birth (ie not trans), but none of those are binary options. You could be blond, you could be bi, you could be non-trans-identifying non-binary. The existence of terms for one state does not imply a binary, but “X and non-X” is literally as binary as you can get.
Brunette does not mean not redhead. If it were true, then not-brunete would mean redhead. Gender is not assigned at birth. Sex is.
And the trans and cis exactly implying just two options.
I’m not sure how many more examples you need to understand this, it’s not exactly a difficult concept.
Two is not one, “not one” does not mean two.
Blue is not red, “not blue” does not mean red.
Cat is not dog, “not dog” does not mean cat.
USA is not Canada, “not Canada” does not mean USA.
Water is not air, “not air” does not mean water.
I am not you, “not you” does not mean me.
Brunette is not redhead, “not redhead” does not mean brunette.
Straight is not gay, “not gay” does not mean straight.
None of these are binary options, just as you yourself have acknowledged the existence of non-binary gender identification. Boolean logic only makes sense for binary options.
Trying to enforce “trans and non-trans” as the only two terms is trying enforcing a binary that you have admitted does not exist.
I don’t understand, are you saying you think there isn’t just two options here? Because either you identify with the gender assigned to you at birth, or you don’t. You’re either transgender, or cisgender.
You keep talking about not having a term for “not redhead”, but I don’t see why you’re focussing on that trait specifically. We don’t have a word for not redheaded because we don’t need one - language dynamically evolves to fill niches when they arise. Another commenter used straight as an example, do you have an issue with that as a term?
Of course! There are queer, there are asexual, Intersexual, two-spirit and so on.
It is precisely because we do not need to be focused on whether a person is trans or sic, splitting people just in two groups is not needed. Especially when trans people who actually transitioned are below 2% of the population. And as we don’t have word for non-readheaded because we do not need one, I am arguing that we do not need the word for non-trans either. There is nothing special about being non-trans that we need a separate word for that.
For the same reason, straight is on of many categories, the others being LGBTQIA2S+… so yes, we need stright, otherwise you would have to say “not gay, not lesbian, not bi, not trans, not queer … +”. That’s rather mouthful to say.