There’s been a lot of excitement over the last week or so in
the feminist blogosphere (which I spend a great deal of my time hanging about
in, although can’t really claim to contribute to) generated by this piece in
the New Statesman by Sadie Smith. In the interest of fairness I want to point
out it was responded to eloquently in the same publication the next day by CN
Lester and they addressed many of the points well so I’ll leave you that one to
read, and I thoroughly recommend that you do.
But one of the most contentious points of Smith’s article was
her discomfort with the word ‘cis’. This was answered in Lester’s piece (as
well as by Stavvers and Cel West here), and that got me thinking. I’ve never
really thought about the word before. I understood that it described me, as
many words do, but I had never thought about it as being particularly problematic.
I then came across this article (I have linked to it, but please be aware that some
of it, especially the comments, is very transphobic. Seriously. This
is pretty hurtful stuff) also arguing against the use of the word cis.
The main gist of it is that the word is being applied to a
large swathe of women who had no say in it. I understand how this might tick
someone of, but I honestly think there’s been a bit of wilful misunderstanding
going on here. This wasn’t something that was just dropped on people with
little or no basis in lived experience. The concept already existed. There are
people who are trans and people who are not trans. It seems obvious there
should be a simple, succinct word that means ‘not trans’. That word is cis.
Stated like this I realised that cis actually benefits me because it means I
don’t have to define myself in negative. I don’t like defining myself by what I’m
not. There is a recognised word that describes me and that can only be a good
thing.
The article also takes issue with cis by claiming it is
reductionist and separates people into two discrete camps, reducing their
identities down to a narrow definition. Again I think this is wilful misunderstanding.
There is not one way to be a cis man or cis woman, or a trans man or trans
woman, or anything in between. There’s not one universally understood way of
being lesbian, British, Northern, White, socialist, feminist or agnostic but I
use all these words to describe myself and understand what other people are
getting at when they use them to refer to me. There’s nuances and differing
definitions and a whole spectrum of identities encompassed in these words but I
like to think they have space to allow these interpretations. I also like to
think that people respect the way I chose to use these words and are prepared to allow me to explain myself. I see no reason
why cis should be any different. Equally the claim made that it makes gender
a concrete, immovable thing is also flawed. Having equivalent but different
terms illustrates that there is a range of expressions of gender and all are
equally valid. All words are somewhat blunt instruments that are open to
interpretation. None of them are perfect in all situations but its how we
communicate. Seeing people refusing to engage with language this way is just
frustrating.
Smith’s article also highlights the use of terms such as ‘cissexist’
and ‘cisfascist’ that she claims are freely thrown at cis women in an attempt
to silence them. I’m not sure about this. I’ve never come across the term cis
being used as a direct insult, but that doesn’t mean that it’s never happened.
The terms Smith quotes seem more likely to have come from someone being
frustrated at how trans people are seen as ‘abnormal’ and how society is set up
on the assumption that everyone is cis. This is something that needs to be
challenged so I don’t really accept Smith’s argument in this place.
Ultimately I think the resistance to the word cis comes from
people who previously assumed they were the norm, the default, and this
position has now been challenged. There is no such thing as normal and if the
term cis is used as freely and frequently as trans then it will
help work towards a more equal, inclusive society.
No comments:
Post a Comment