A simple trans/cis binary doesn't leave room for other identities where gender identity and how you are perceived and privileged do not line up neatly, as people are discussing below, in addition to the ways in which gender identity and sexual orientation are not currently neatly separated in mainstream thought in the US (not to mention cultural differences in the models globally--and race and ethnicity not separating neatly from gender identity/perception as well.) I'm not against using the word cisgender, I'm just seeing a lot of simplistic usage shutting down consideration of gender variation in some places, rather than opening it up, and used in ways that don't help coalition work--not that coalition work always needs to be a goal and there aren't times for focusing separately and inwardly.
And on a simple level, hey, where do I as a genderqueer fit in if we just got a binary to work with? I don't have a problem being considered trans, but I don't want to be an interloper either.
I talk more about it here and further discussion is in my LJ and IJ comments under the same name. But maybe we need more terminology for designating the spaces between gender identity, expression, and perception by others here. And I don't want to assume anyone has all these axes lined up, when they may not.
Re: That's an interesting point!
And on a simple level, hey, where do I as a genderqueer fit in if we just got a binary to work with? I don't have a problem being considered trans, but I don't want to be an interloper either.
I talk more about it here and further discussion is in my LJ and IJ comments under the same name. But maybe we need more terminology for designating the spaces between gender identity, expression, and perception by others here. And I don't want to assume anyone has all these axes lined up, when they may not.