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.
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.