I’d rather have a more honed argument than what I provided. I hate the arrogance and presumptiveness and bubble-world aspects of “don’t say ‘cis’ because normal is just normal” 
style arguments so I’m seeing red here.
I’d rather have a more honed argument than what I provided. I hate the arrogance and presumptiveness and bubble-world aspects of “don’t say ‘cis’ because normal is just normal” style arguments so I’m seeing red here.
It is a question of Boolean logic and linguistic clarity. All cis women are women but not all women are cis. All trans women are women but not all women are trans.
Most of the time the distinction between cis and trans is irrelevant so you dont mention it, other times the general gender category is not precise enough so you mention the more specific trans or cis categories to communicate clearly and precisely.
Insisting on not using the term cis is as nonsensical as insisting not to use the word car because a car is the “normal” motorised vehicle and only “anomalies” like motorcycles and trucks should have their own specific identifiers.
That’s excellent. I may use that later.
Bonus damage against carbrains!!
“The normal way.”
Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
If you really want to help them though you should understand that, for the people making this argument, probably 99.99% of people in their lives are cis. If 99.99% of travel was done by car, then yes it would be the “normal” way of travel and there’d be no need to distinguish.
Maybe a better example would be EVs? We’ve never needed to specify an “ICE” car before because they’ve had dominance. Now though, EVs are becoming more common and all of a sudden what used to be just a “car” is an ICE car. It was always an ICE car but there was never a need to say it because nobody ever had EVs. Well, not anymore! And same for gender.