There’s a lot of discussion on UK Twitter right now about women’s safety in public spaces. And of course, I’ve been afraid to walk after dark, and sometimes even during the daytime, in most places that I’ve lived and visited.
Using terms like “Cis” or whatever these twitter dumbasses say
Cis isn’t some twitter thing, its an actual scientific term that’s been used for a long time.
Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning “on this side of”, which is the opposite of trans-, meaning “across from” or “on the other side of”. This usage can be seen in the cis–trans distinction in chemistry, the cis and trans sides of the Golgi apparatus in cellular biology, the cis–trans or complementation test in genetics, in Ciscaucasia (from the Russian perspective), in the ancient Roman term Cisalpine Gaul (i.e., “Gaul on this side of the Alps”), Ciskei and Transkei (separated by the Kei River), and more recently, Cisjordan, as distinguished from Transjordan. In the case of gender, cis- describes the alignment of gender identity with assigned sex.[5]
I know “Cis” was commonly used in chemistry, especially Geometric Organic Chemistry Models, i’ve studied those things. What i mean is that binding it to “men” and then creating a “cis men” (Which refers to a man who attributes gender to sex at born, as you said) word isn’t even on dictionaries, also “cis” doesn’t fit as an adjective, so you can’t use it to describe something, in this case, a man.
Cisgender is correct, but “cis men” isn’t even a concept.
All my anger is about that author classifying “cis men”, i have nothing against “cisgender”, which can be attributed to any person, but saying specifically “cis men” is just unfair.
edit:
Sorry, i have read my last comment again and realized it was quite offensive, i’m really sorry, that day i was quite angered.
I don’t understand what you mean saying cisgender men is the correct for but cis men doesn’t exist. cis men is just less cumbersome than saying cisgender men, and it works as an adjective about as well as saying trans man. The reason the author made the distinction is that trans men aren’t really a concern.
Forget it, i’ve take a look at all dictionaries as possible on web and all them classify “cis” as an adjective. I am sorry for my mistake, also for my last offensive comment.
Cis isn’t some twitter thing, its an actual scientific term that’s been used for a long time.
Your whole rant is based off of misinformation.
I know “Cis” was commonly used in chemistry, especially Geometric Organic Chemistry Models, i’ve studied those things. What i mean is that binding it to “men” and then creating a “cis men” (Which refers to a man who attributes gender to sex at born, as you said) word isn’t even on dictionaries, also “cis” doesn’t fit as an adjective, so you can’t use it to describe something, in this case, a man. Cisgender is correct, but “cis men” isn’t even a concept. All my anger is about that author classifying “cis men”, i have nothing against “cisgender”, which can be attributed to any person, but saying specifically “cis men” is just unfair.
edit: Sorry, i have read my last comment again and realized it was quite offensive, i’m really sorry, that day i was quite angered.
I don’t understand what you mean saying cisgender men is the correct for but cis men doesn’t exist. cis men is just less cumbersome than saying cisgender men, and it works as an adjective about as well as saying trans man. The reason the author made the distinction is that trans men aren’t really a concern.
Forget it, i’ve take a look at all dictionaries as possible on web and all them classify “cis” as an adjective. I am sorry for my mistake, also for my last offensive comment.
nah its okay, the fact that you learned is good. Plus you’re one of the lucky 10,000