What are cis and trans alternate types of? I don’t think it’s “gender identity” because wouldn’t that just be man, woman or nonbinary regardless of whether they’re cis or trans? Cis/trans just being a qualifier?
If the answer is “I am cis” or “I am trans”, what is the question?
Edit: Someone came up with the term “gender congruity” and (after looking up the definition of “congruity”) I think this describes what I’m talking about perfectly.
Please note I’m typing this as a trans man. Being “cis” or “trans” stems from someone’s gender.
Basically, do you identify as your birth gender (not sex, gender and sex are different)? If the answer is yes, you are “cis”. If the answer is no, like I my case, I was born female, I identify as a male, then you are are trans.
I hope this answers your question.
I understand what they are, I’m asking if there is a name for the category of characteristic that they both belong to.
I’m not entirely sure there is a word for it. If not, maybe there should be.
You’re not getting an answer to your question because the question, as stated, is incomprehensible. You’re asking for a “category of characteristic” that a pair of antonym adjectives “belong to”? That doesn’t make sense. They apply to a whole host of characteristics, because they’re not describing a specific characteristic, but how a characteristic relates to the whole. Just like “homo” and “hetero”; homozygous, heterogenous, homocystine, and heterophony are all words that use the “homo” or “hetero” prefix to describe how those words relate to other concepts in their category. It’s the same with “cis” and “trans”. The prefixes don’t “belong” to a category of characteristics, they explicitly exist outside of the characteristics of the words their modifying.
That’s the best I can do with the way you’ve chosen to phrase your question, and I admit it’s a reach, but your question is gibberish.
Male, female or nonbinary are a person’s gender.
White, black, asian (nonexclusively) are a person’s race.
Right, left are a person’s handedness.
Gay, straight, bi are a person’s sexual orientation.
Cis, trans are a person’s ________.
Gender modality
Cis and trans don’t really describe a person in the same way as the others. They describe a relationship between characteristics, which none of the other descriptors you list do. You could argue, almost correctly, that cis and trans are part of a person’s gender, but neither one of them is a person’s anything.
Hetero and homo describe a relationship between characteristics. Sexual preference and gender are both characteristics.
Gender identity.
I talked about that in the original post.
“Relationships between gender identity and birth sex.”
Shouldn’t it be that you identify with your birth sex? If gender is a social construct you don’t have a gender at birth. When the doctor says “It’s a boy” they’re referring to the genitalia you have, not assigning you a social position.
Sex is also a social construct btw.
No it’s not. Unless you’re suggesting you collectively thought my dick into existence.
Genitals aren’t sex though. They are part of what society uses to create the category of sex. But sex is no more real than gender or race.
Society does not create sex. Society creates gender. Gender is a social construct. Sex is an expression of your sex chromosomes. The genitalia you have at birth weren’t decided upon arbitrarily by everyone in the room, they’re a direct consequence of whether you have or lack a y chromosome.
Money is a social construct. That doesn’t mean coins and dollar bills don’t exist. Sex is made up by society. Genitals are a physical thing. But they’re not the same thing. Just like coins and money are not the same thing.
You’re confusing sex and gender. Sex is a function of biology. It is binary. There are two sexes, and which sex you are is wholly determined by presence or absence of a y chromosome.
Gender is a social construct.
This is the entire reason that the term transgender is used now instead of transsexual.
Also, your whole analogy is shit. The concept of money didn’t spring into existence because people already had coins. The coins spring forth from the concept of money. By your logic, we only have genitals because society got together and decided that we should all have a sex.
That is the stupidest idea I have ever heard in my life, and Ive read several tweets from Donald Trump.
Do you think sex didn’t exist before 1912? It seems like you are confusing sex with the rough approximation of the shape of a chromosome and oversimplifying how those chromosomes relates to phenotype.
Trans people change their sex, not their gender. Trans men are men before they start taking T and trans women are women before they start taking E. What changes is their sex. Personally, I hope we see transgender replaced with something soon. Transsexual is fine as a subcategory of transgender people (or a category with lots of overlap with transgender people).
Social constructs don’t all originate in the same way. If you want an example more like sex, you can look at the social construct of race. Race is not skin color, but the social construct is related to things like skin color. Just because race is a social construct doesn’t mean skin color came after race.
You might not believe in the social construct at birth, but the social construct believes in you. Children are treated differently based on assigned gender from birth.
Now that I think about it, you’re right. If you’re a male, you get swaddled and handed to your mother, but if you’re female, you get swaddled and handed to your mother.
I’m sorry what? That is not a thing
You’re right. No one has ever swaddled a baby, certainly not often enough that we have a specific word for it. It stands to reason no one has ever handed a baby to their mother either.
I’m like 80% certain that you’re trolling and no one could be this thick, but just in case: I’m talking about the sex of the baby determining which parent the baby is handed to. That is what is not a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language
Since we’re just linking wikipedia articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Explain to me how being killed at birth depending on sex is not a valid response to your completely incorrect and ignorant statement that babies are treated the same irrespective of sex.
Explain to me how you saw a link covering literal and figurative language and still decided to ask such an ignorant question.
So now you are just being a coward and claiming that you were just speaking figuratively while desperately trying to derail a conversation you were too ignorant to participate in?
Ok, I accept your concession.
And either way, your mother starts treating you differently based on apparent sex.
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-02259-007
When does your mother start treating you differently based on sex?
Depending on the country, really really early. e.g. - in India its illegal to disclose the sex of the fetus to the parents/family because of high female infanticide.
In-laws, the father, and many times even the mother will want a son to carry on the family name instead of a daughter who will be married off to some other family (with the cost of marriage and dowry). And it was quiet common for the fetus to be aborted if it was female. The situation has improved a bit today, but gerl children are still treated very poorly is many parts of the country.
Of course, girls here are treated a million times better than trans folk here. 90% of them (hijra community) are beggars on the streets/trains.
So not at birth then?
Typically before you even leave the womb, these days.
So not at birth?