“Cis” in relation to trans is not the same as “white” in relation to black, as I think TRAs imply.

submitted by Bogos from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Spikygrasspod 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It helps to point out whiteness because it can otherwise be an invisible default in our thinking. If we name it, it might still be the default but at least it's visible, which means we can correct our biases. In theory. Hopefully. Cis would only be useful if trans and cis people were two reasonably distinct social groups with different needs that were made invisible by the default assumption of 'cis-ness'. Which may or may not be true, depending on what trans means. The definition has expanded so much it's hard to say. Certainly I don't think people with a certain gender identity constitute a meaningful social group. Also, I think white people do in fact call themselves white, so it's not really offensive to label them as such. But lots of women don't think of themselves as cis, don't meet the definition, and find the definition itself offensive because it implies a 'gender identity', which we don't have.

[–]Bogos[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

White is not a self identification category except among racists, or in situations in which white people recognize the privilege they have in a Euro and Anglo centric world. Further white is a category that has changed over time, for example in the US, Irish immigrants were not considered white at first, then Italians, then sub continental Indians (who had to lobby for non white status), etc. No one is proud of being “white” unless they’re a Nazi, it’s simply a category that one uses to recognize their privilege. historically It was a way to differentiate from “others” though I didn’t live at that time so I don’t know how much of a part of self concept it was outside of very segregated societies like the antebellum south.

TRAs have co-opted this sympathy, that’s their “in,” because many people haven’t throroughly thought about why minorities or other groups make the demands they do. They rather just acquiesce without let’s say, reliving the horror of the slave trade or Japanese internment camps, or massacre of North Americans. I think many people acquiesce without thinking and therefore the TRA demands seem just as reasonable, even though it was a mental illness a few years ago.

[–]Spikygrasspod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a way of distinguishing white people from all non-white people. That can be for racist purposes, or an acknowledgement of privilege, or maybe neither, like when you have to say what group you belong to for research/data collection. I'm not sure that most white people 'self-identify' as white or are proud of it, I think they're just aware that they fall into that category as a matter of fact. I think it's useful to have names for relevantly different social groups with different needs. Having a name for the invisible default is sometimes useful. So I wouldn't object on principle to terms that distinguish (real) trans people from non-trans people. But I don't like the way that TRA terms recategorise people into social groups they don't belong to, using linguistic sleight of hand and, as you say, sympathy. And the definition of trans has expanded so much that it doesn't really refer to a relevantly similar group of people who are relevantly different to everyone else, so...