transphobia

The ‘Shit Cis People Say’ Alphabet: X is for “XX or XY”

Welcome to another episode of the Shit Cis People Say Alphabet! Today:

X is for “XX or XY”

One of the ways transphobic cis people try to invalidate trans people is by insisting that our gender is determined by our chromosomes, that everyone is either XX or XY, all people with XX chromosomes have vaginas, and are women, and all people with XY chromosomes have penises and are men, and that’s that. Cis folks like to think they’re being rational and scientific by appealing to biology in this way, but the truth is that these claims are incorrect on literally every level – there are other chromosomal arrangements, even the binary XX/XY system doesn’t have a 1-to-1 correspondence with genital development (and of course, genitals don’t have a 1-to-1 correspondence with gender), most people don’t even know their chromosomes in the first place, and that’s definitely not how we gender babies, among other things.

If you’re making a claim to chromosomes to justify your transphobia, I honestly don’t think you’re even trying to understand what you’re talking about, and so my motivation to write rebuttals for this is minimal, and I find myself bored before I even start. So, in lieu of rewriting all the explanations for why ‘but *chromosomes*!!!!’ isn’t a refutation of trans people’s identities, here’s a couple of recommended reads instead:

Transgender People and ‘Biological Sex’ Myths | Julia Serano

Chromosomes: cis expectations vs. trans reality | Zinnia Jones, Gender Analysis

Happy reading!


Check out the rest of the “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

The ‘Shit Cis People Say’ Alphabet: W is for “womyn-born-womyn”

Welcome to another episode of the Shit Cis People Say Alphabet! Today:

W is for “womyn-born-womyn”

Womyn-born-womyn (sometimes just spelled women-born-women) is a category some radical feminists created in order to exclude trans women from their feminism. Those of us who don’t exclude trans women from our feminism sometimes refer to these exclusionists as Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFs for short.

The entire concept of womyn-born-womyn (in the ways that TERFs mean and use it) would be ridiculous if it wasn’t used to harm so many women every day.

“Womyn-born-womyn” was coined with the apparent intent of meaning the same thing as ‘cisgender women’, before the popularization of the word cisgender (although the people who use the phrase womyn-born-womyn generally consider cis to be a slur (we talked about that one a while back), and have not adopted it).

Of course, the use of the phrase “womyn-born-womyn” with the intent of excluding trans women is based on an incorrect understranding of trans women’s gender, since, just like most cis women, many trans women were born girls (no one is really born a woman – we talked about that already as well) – trans women simply weren’t assigned the correct gender at birth.

On top of this, the folks who use the phrase womyn-born-womyn aren’t just incorrectly including trans women from that category – very often events that are purportedly limited to “womyn-born-womyn” are actually welcoming to trans men and non-binary people who were assigned female at birth. This tells us what “womyn-born-womyn” is really meant to signify, which is quite simply “people with vulvas”.

I honestly hate everything about “womyn-born-womyn” rhetoric, but I am particularly baffled by the way trans exclusionary radical feminists, who do in theory have a problem with women and women’s roles being defined by their genitalia, who believe that we are so much more than a letter on our birth certificate, being so damn biologically essentialist about gender anyway.

So yes, although the phrase “womyn-born-womyn” does not seem like it necessarily has to be transphobic, know that it’s usage is very much actively and deliberately transmisogynist.


Check out the rest of the “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

A positive book review for once!

I seem to only write about books on here when they annoy or anger me. (I do write good reviews when my librarian hat is on, for the record!) Today, you get a reprieve from my negativity!

Ever since I read the trainwreck of a book that was Understanding Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation, I’ve been lowkey on the lookout for a schoolkid-appropriate book that actually addresses transgender people in a thorough and respectful way.

And today I found one!

Identifying as Transgender, by Sara Woods, is part of Rosen Publishing’s “Transgender Life” series (it being part of a series on trans issues is mostly why the title is a little awkward, I think?), and I’m clearly going to need to check out the rest of the series, because this one kind of knocks it out of the park!

Things this book does that I love include:

  • Talking about being cisgender on the same level as talking about being transgender, so transgender people are not actively othered.

    Everyone, transgender and cisgender alike, has a gender identity. A cisgender person is a person whose gender identity is consistent with their assigned gender… Transgender people, on the other hand, have gender identities that do not match the genders assigned to them at birth. (pg. 7)

  • Actively and consistently acknowledging non-binary genders throughout (non-binary people are included throughout, and not just as a side-note which is thereafter forgotten).
  • Acknowledging the diversity of trans experiences generally.

    Some trans women come to identify as women after many years of life, while others identify as girls when they are toddlers. (pg. 8)

    The painful experience of dysphoria has many sources and impacts many transgender people. But it is not universal. Many find that they are comfortable with their bodies as they are. This fact does make them any less or more trans. (pg. 25)

  • Explicitly identifying the book’s primarily colonial North American perspective (it is the target market for the book), and acknowledging that many contemporary societies actively include more than two genders.

    Some contemporary examples of nonbinary genders include the muxe in Zapotec communities in southern Mexico, the waria in Indonesia, and the mashoga in Swhili-speaking areas of the Kenyan coast – each of these identities carries its own specific attributes and meanings.

    Here in the United States, and Canada as well, many people fall outside of the binary. [Some explanation of different non-binary genders, genderfluid and agender identities.] In addition, many indigenous people are two-spirit, a term rooted in gender identities specific to some of the peoples indigenous to the continent. (pg. 11)

  • Discussing intersex people while also carefully differentiating between being intersex and being transgender (and defining dyadic alongside intersex in the same way that cisgender and transgender are discussed alongside one another).

    Most People are dyadic, but many people are intersex… Like dyadic people, intersex people are usually assigned male or female at birth. Because the concept of binary biological sex is so deeply ingrained in medical practice, many intersex people have been subject to nonconsensual treatments by doctors and surgeons (pg. 23)

    People often wrongly confuse the meanings of intersex and transgender. While some intersex people are transgender, many are not, identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth. Similarly, most transgender people are dyadic and do not have any intersex variations. (pg. 23)

  • Including inclusive definitions of sexual and romantic orientation (in a chapter intended to dispel the myth that all trans people are gay, and that transness and queerness are the same thing).

    Just like cisgender people, transgender people can be gay or straight. They can also be bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual, greysexual, aromantic, or polyamorous[*] (pp. 29-30).

  • Discussing intersecting experiences of marginalization!

    All transgender people are vulnerable to transphobia and cissexism. But there are groups of trans people who experience additional marginalization and mistreatment. (pg. 43)

    This section goes on to discuss transmisogyny, and some of the ways in which ableism and racism can combine with cissexism and transphobia to make life even more difficult for multiply marginalized trans people.

  • THIS:

    When it comes to nonbinary people, the dominant terms that we have for sexuality tend to not make much sense. Who, for example, would a straight agender person date? Would a genderqueer person only be homosexual if they dated other genderqueer people? What if they dated a gender fluid person? (pg. 31)

I am so pleased with this book, y’all. Check it out if you can!


*I mean, ok, you may object to this being included among orientations (I am extremely iffy about this myself), but in general the idea here is that trans people’s ways of forming relationships are just as diverse as cis people’s, so I’m giving it a pass.

The ‘Shit Cis People Say’ Alphabet: U is for “unless/until”

Welcome to another episode of the Shit Cis People Say Alphabet! Today:

U is for “unless/until”

Cis people often seem occupy this convenient malleable position vis-à-vis trans people. Although cis folks are quick to plead ignorance when they misstep or use damaging words to talk about trans people, at the same time they often like to hold forth as if they are the judges of who is and isn’t ‘really’ trans.

These rules aren’t constant, of course, but cis people really do love to set up goalposts for the conditions (usually related to medical interventions) trans people must meet before their identities become worthy of respect.

As in, “You’re not really trans *unless* you’ve had ‘the Surgery’”. As in, “I’m not going to call you by your correct name/pronouns *until* you grow your hair longer (or cut it shorter)”.

Among the many (many) things I have to say about this bullshit (there are often double standards in here that cis people don’t need to meet in order to have their pronouns respected, for instance), I am mostly just baffled and tired by it all.

If someone tells you they are a woman, or a man, or non-binary, or anything else, what harm does it do you to respect that? If someone doesn’t look like what you think someone of their gender *should* look like, so the fuck what? How is that your call to make anyway?

Let people be the boss of their own gender, for fuck’s sake. I promise it won’t kill you. Whereas being denied recognition of something so basic as their gender does regularly contribute to transgender people’s decision to commit suicide, so.

Make the right choice, y’all.


Check out the rest of the “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

The ‘Shit Cis People Say’ Alphabet: R is for “Real”

Welcome to another episode of the Shit Cis People Say Alphabet! Today:

R is for ‘real’

The idea of realness is often levied against trans people. The misuse of the word ‘real’ by cis people is actually one of the reasons why we need the word ‘cis’, because without a word to identify the group of people who (basically) identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, people commonly default to describing such men and women as ‘real men’ and ‘real women’, thus implying that trans men and women somehow aren’t real (or rather, that their man- or womanhood isn’t real).

Cis people seem to think trans people(’s identities) aren’t real because they’re different from what some doctor announced when we were born, and even that our names aren’t real because we may not have the same name we were given when we were born (though we at least have that in common with a majority of married women (somehow), and they aren’t often asked what their real name is, or if their current name is their real name. I wonder why that could be?*)

I know that sometimes this misuse of the word ‘real’ (especially with respect to names) is fairly innocently intended – I know because on the occasions that I have questioned people’s use of the word in these contexts, they’ve  been clear that wasn’t what they meant and have fumbled for a more appropriate word.

For names, the phrase you want is “birth name”. Some trans people also refer to their birth name as their “deadname”; I’m going to go ahead and say that it’s never ok to ask someone what their deadname was, because when people use that term, it is giving you an idea of how they feel about that name, ok?

For people, if there is some reason why you need to specifically denote the subset of men and/or women who had their gender (basically) correctly identified at birth (and for the record, unless you’re talking about their privileged position relative to trans people, you probably don’t), the word you want is ‘cis’ (or ‘cisgender’ if you want to be formal about it).

Stop implicitly invalidating trans people in this way. And call out other people you see doing it, too.


*Rhetorical question. I know it’s because of cissexism. And heterosexism. And, to some extent, plain old misogyny. Triple whammy of nesting/intersecting oppressions!

Check out the rest of the “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

The ‘Shit Cis People Say’ Alphabet: L is for “Love”

Welcome to another episode of the Shit Cis People Say Alphabet! Today:

L is for “Love”

This one has multiple sides. On the one hand, I want to take a moment to acknowledge here that there are cis folks out in the world who just love the trans folks in their lives, unproblematically and unreservedly. It’s not all bad! In fact, when I was originally mapping out this alphabet, I had intended for this post to be simply positive, for a bit of a break.

But, as it worked out after my unplanned break, this post is going up on Transgender Day of Visibility (I am coming out to the folks I work with today in fact! Expect to hear more about this soon), and I really don’t want to spend my TDOV post celebrating cis people.

And in any case, the word ‘love’ is actually used against trans folks at least as much as it is used to support us.

The classic example of this is one that applies to LGBT people generally, in the form of that good old (primarily Christian) adage “love the sinner, hate the sin”. More than any other ‘sins’, this rhetoric gets pulled out in attempt to demonstrate that it’s possible to hate LGBT people’s LGBT-ness without hating the people themselves.

This is, of course, a steaming pile of bullshit. I mean, I hope it’s obvious that it is inherently hateful to consider an uncontrolled, unchangeable part of a person’s lived experience and identity as a ‘sin’, as something that renders them incapable of being unsinful. Even if you only tie the ‘sin’ to actions rather than internal experiences (e.g. accepting that homosexual attraction simply exists naturally, but still believing that pursuing homosexual sexual relationships is sinful, or believing that trans people are fine as long as we keep to ourselves never actually express or present as anything other than our birth-assigned gender), it is still blatantly hetero-/cis-sexist to take this attitude toward LGBT people, not least because it’s not even a scriptural stance in the first place.

On top of all of that, even, ‘love’ is often used against trans people in other violent ways, as when a cisgender parent tells a trans man in the same breath as “ I love you” that “you’ll always by my little girl”, or when a cisgender friend insists that their trans friend will always by [deadname] to them. Because, y’know, love.

These sorts of sentiments are intensely selfish, as it suggests that these cisgender people really only love the idea they had of the trans person before they found out who that person really is. Bringing love into this kinds of violently invalidating statements perverts the entire concept of love, and turns it into a weapon by implying that trans people should accept bad treatment from their loved ones.

And I hope it is very, very clear that that is not how love works. That is, in fact, how abuse works. It is emotional blackmail, and it is not ok.


Check out the rest of the “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

The “Shit Cis People Say” Alphabet: H is for “how do you have sex?”

Welcome to another episode of the Shit Cis People Say Alphabet! Today:

H is for “how do you have sex?”

This question? It’s not even just relevant to trans people – it’s a common question  directed at LGBQ+ folks as well. The clearest answer in most cases (unless you’re planning on having sex with the person asking it, I guess?) is ‘um, none of your darn business.’ It is kind of amazing how simply being trans can open a person up to the kinds of invasive questions that they would never dream of asking in any other context. Suddenly we’re not people; we’re research subjects, or more often merely objects of fleeting curiosity.

But, even setting that aside, this question? It just depresses me, on so many levels. I do want to acknowledge upfront that for some trans people (as for some cis people) the answer is always simply going to be “I don’t have sex.” Because not everyone wants to , and not everyone has sex even if they do want to. But again, even setting that aside, I don’t understand how this is even confusing to people.

Because you know how I have sex with other people? [This is not going not be explicit, it’s ok!]

Me and the people I have sex with, we touch each other in whatever ways feel good to us. Or we try to, though it doesn’t always work out that way, I guess. But really, that’s it. And I really hope that’s how most people do it.

Just, like, if you seriously can’t think of ways that people with, I guess, different genital combinations than the ones you’re used to in your own sex life might be able to touch each pleasurably? You are seriously lacking in imagination, at best.

Because the thing is, genitals are somewhat important to sex, for most people, of course. But, so are so many other body parts that people possess regardless of gender or sexual orientation or whether they are trans. Most of us have hands, with fingers on them, or other appendages that can probably be used to do things.

Like, seriously? You can’t think of *any* sex acts you might participate in that the trans person in front of you is also capable of? Really?

Or are you just actually hoping for the dirty details, because you’re just that much of a creep? Which is it?


Check out the rest of the “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

The “Shit Cis People Say” Alphabet: B is for ‘Born a man’/’Born a woman’

Welcome to another episode of the “Shit Cis People Say” Alphabet. Today:

B is for ‘Born a Man’/’Born a woman’

Sometimes, when cisgender people are talking about a trans person, they will try to explain their trans-ness in simple terms, by explaining that a trans woman is a woman who was ‘born a man’, (or that a trans man is a man who was ‘born a woman’). I would like this wording to die in a fire, to be perfectly honest.

I cannot stress this enough: no one in the history of the entire world – cis, trans, or otherwise – was ‘born’ either man or a woman. We are all born as babies, and in most cases adults then make a guess at what our gender is and generally call us either a girl or a boy.

For some people, it may very well be true to say they were ‘born a girl’ or ‘born a boy’ (other people – trans, cis, and otherwise – don’t really see their gender as something they were born with, but rather as something that developed after they were born). The thing about that, though, is that trans men are just as likely to have been born boys as cis men are – trans men who are born boys are just much more likely to have the adults in their mistakenly think that they were born girls, is all.

Certainly there are trans men out there who feel that it is accurate to describe them as having been born girls, and trans women who see themselves as having been born boys, people who feel their gender has shifted over the course of their life, starting in one place and winding up elsewhere. But that is far and away not the only, or even the most common trans experience.

So, cis people, just stop it already with talking about people of any kind being born as men or women. We aren’t, any of us. And, more importantly, stop saying trans people were born in a gender other than the one they tell you they are – most of us weren’t.


Check out the rest of “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

The “Shit Cis People Say” Alphabet: A is for Attention (as in, you’re just doing it for the…)

Welcome to my new Friday blogging series, the “Shit Cis People Say” Alphabet. One letter per week for 26 weeks! Lets’ see if I can pull it off.

A is for Attention!

One of the weirder ways that cis people sometimes try to invalidate trans people’s genders is by claiming that we’re just pretending to be trans “for the attention”.

…Which, I find it hard to believe that the people making this argument even believe it themselves. Surely there are better and easier ways to seek attention? And, given the continued invisibility of trans people generally, (yes, despite this golden age of lavish media attention we supposedly have right now – it definitely seems that at least half of the random people I see making cissexist claims about ‘only women’ having periods or ‘all men’ having penises, etc. are doing so out of pure ignorance/forgetfulness of the fact that trans people exist, rather than a deliberate denial of trans people’s genders), if this is a bid for attention, it doesn’t seem to be working all that well, to be honest.

Here’s the thing cis folks: yes, trans activists and others are currently doing their best to demand attention be paid to trans issues. Because our lives are currently unfairly and unnecessarily disadvantaged and made difficult in countless ways that could be easily fixed, if people just managed to hold the idea of our existence in their heads on a consistent basis. We need to be visible, and we do want attention. And sometimes, when we talk about our lives and our identities, we do so for the purpose of increasing the visibility of ourselves and our struggles.

But that is an *entirely* different thing from the idea that our existence as trans people, that our identities themselves, are formed out of a bid for attention. We do make bids for attention sometimes *because* we are trans, and because of all of the ways our trans-ness causes us to be marginalized. But our trans-ness is not in and of itself, a bid for attention. Most of us just want our identities quietly respected in the way that most cis people’s are everyday.

Got it? Good.


Check out the rest of “Shit Cis People Say” alphabet!

Online dating while genderqueer: I feel gross right now

[Content note: cissexism, genitals]

Every once in a while I will get a message from some dude on OKCupid who wants to know if he can ask me some questions, because y’know, he’s just a straight shooter, the kind of guy who lays all his cards on the table. He probably doesn’t mince words either, and maybe he just wants to get right to the point.

Anyway, the point is, he wants to know about my junk. And what kind I have.

Mostly I don’t super care about these questions – my standard response is “None of your business, since if it matters to you, then I’m not interested anyway.”

But sometimes they manage to be extra creepy about it. The most recent dude, for no apparent reason, made a point of letting me know that he had scoured my profile and all of the photos I included, but that he had not been able to determine on his own what my genitals looked like.

I suspect that this is because I, shockingly enough, have not included and photos of my genitals on my OKC profile. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be allowed to even if I wanted to. Nor do I describe my genitals in any of the written sections of my profile. Go figure.

But more to the point, my PSA of this day is:

Unless you are looking at a person’s genitals, or a picture of their genitals, no amount of searching their appearance for ‘clues’ or whatever will allow you to tell what genitals they have. The fact that so many people think this is possible is because they are cissexist douches.

That is all.