As non-trans person, I can partially confirm. First time when I heard it, my reaction was “why do you need a new word for that?” Now I kind of used to it, but still there is some amusement each time I hear this word - it seems unnecessary, when “non-trans” would suffice if needed to avoid confusion. But slur? That’s nonsense is only in Musk’s head.
If we are talking about sociology journals, then yes, I agree, cis is the right term. If we are talking about general use, like in newspaper, then there is natural reaction of bewilderment - why would you need this term? Please understand that most of the people (me including) do not meet/do not see trans people in their lives (at least they do not know they are trans). I personally know exactly zero of such people. So, the world from the point of not-trans person looks very different - they read about trans people on internet and in the news, it is rare phenomenon, that is not even observed by them personally. That’s why it seems as really unnecessary world. Do you have a special word for non-albinos or for non-red-heads? And those (albinos and red-heads) they see in their life more frequently.
And here is where insisting and pushing this word on other people comes at disadvantage to trans community - the right will use any opportunity to use bewilderment of non-trans people to propagate whatever stereotypes they want to propagate about trans. They will say that trans people are “forcing” other people to call themselves “cis”, and that this is derogative term, and nobody likes to be forced to do something like that.
I think that, from the perspective of trans people, the word is deeply necessary. If we aren’t even permitted to have a neutral descriptor that describes everyone else, how can we even find ways to talk about our lives? Would you expect gay folks to never use the word “straight” when talking to straight people? Black folks never to use the word “white” when talking to white people? When a marginalised group is not permitted even to assign a name to the dominant group… yeah, there’s something very amiss. From our perspective, using weird circumlocutions like “non-trans” really isn’t okay. It becomes a tacit way to assert that there are “normal (non trans) people” and “abnormal (trans) peole”. The reason why we push for “cis and trans” as the terminology is that it’s… well, it’s basic fairness?
As non-trans person, I can partially confirm. First time when I heard it, my reaction was “why do you need a new word for that?” Now I kind of used to it, but still there is some amusement each time I hear this word - it seems unnecessary, when “non-trans” would suffice if needed to avoid confusion. But slur? That’s nonsense is only in Musk’s head.
deleted by creator
If we are talking about sociology journals, then yes, I agree, cis is the right term. If we are talking about general use, like in newspaper, then there is natural reaction of bewilderment - why would you need this term? Please understand that most of the people (me including) do not meet/do not see trans people in their lives (at least they do not know they are trans). I personally know exactly zero of such people. So, the world from the point of not-trans person looks very different - they read about trans people on internet and in the news, it is rare phenomenon, that is not even observed by them personally. That’s why it seems as really unnecessary world. Do you have a special word for non-albinos or for non-red-heads? And those (albinos and red-heads) they see in their life more frequently.
And here is where insisting and pushing this word on other people comes at disadvantage to trans community - the right will use any opportunity to use bewilderment of non-trans people to propagate whatever stereotypes they want to propagate about trans. They will say that trans people are “forcing” other people to call themselves “cis”, and that this is derogative term, and nobody likes to be forced to do something like that.
deleted by creator
To be fair, “cis” comes from latin which means “on the same side of,” in contrast to “trans” which means “on the other side of.”
Why use that instead of non-trans? I don’t know, but yeah, I don’t think the word is a slur.
It’s not an eiher/or. E.g. non-trans could also be non-binary.
English loves antonyms.
I think that, from the perspective of trans people, the word is deeply necessary. If we aren’t even permitted to have a neutral descriptor that describes everyone else, how can we even find ways to talk about our lives? Would you expect gay folks to never use the word “straight” when talking to straight people? Black folks never to use the word “white” when talking to white people? When a marginalised group is not permitted even to assign a name to the dominant group… yeah, there’s something very amiss. From our perspective, using weird circumlocutions like “non-trans” really isn’t okay. It becomes a tacit way to assert that there are “normal (non trans) people” and “abnormal (trans) peole”. The reason why we push for “cis and trans” as the terminology is that it’s… well, it’s basic fairness?