Occam’s Cis-sor

Mind your sphere of influence

“What is Occam’s razor? Occam’s razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more.” — Encyclopedia Britannica

In the transgender debate (massive eye-roll), it seems like many of us are getting hung up on the words and not the thing. It seems that people believe that they can disprove the validity of transgender experiences by creating a logical construct of language that shows a contradiction with the words transgender, cisgender, nonbinary, or the concept that language and biological sex are not inextricably linked in a cis-binary relationship. These arguments, at the end, are ridiculous — because whatever you call transgender persons, we exist. In whatever way language continues to evolve to describe our states of being, we not only exist but we have existed throughout history and in all cultures. So while a debate is ongoing, the debate just might be misplaced or at least misdirected.

So I posit a corollary to Occam’s Razor, which I am naming Occam’s Cis-sor. This is a principle of argument or discussion focus that is narrowed so that, all things being equal, there is a hope in hell that what you are arguing for can actually be achieved.

I am using the the term Cis-sor to call out the many discussions I have read about the use of cis. Now for the small number of you who don’t know, cis is a common Latin word that can be translated to mean, “on this side of” while trans, its opposite or antonym, can be translated as “on the other side of” or “beyond”.

It is simplistic to think of transgender as meaning someone who identifies as and may have physically transitioned toward the binary opposite gender and physical sex from those assigned at birth. It is simplistic because neither gender nor biological sex are strictly binary as they naturally occur in nature including human beings. So translating trans as “beyond” is probably more useful in this case as it avoids the binary. Also as an interesting note, transgender is a relatively new term, first coined by Psychiatrist John F. Oliven of Columbia University in 1965.

On the other hand, the term cisgender was coined in 1994 and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.

I personally like the use of both ‘transgender’ and ‘cisgender’ as they are more inclusive and lack the derogatory connotations sometimes associated with the older term ‘transexual’. But that is a personal preference and others proudly call themselves transexual, and there is nothing wrong with that!

Now what does ‘cis’ and ‘cisgender’ have to do with my principle of Occam’s Cis-sor? Well, it’s about time I get back to focusing on the subject at hand before the kitten below snatches it away!

Back already? Had enough fetching feline furfection? OK then!

The use of cisgender is fine in my book. Some people complain because they don’t like new words. These people are either very young, don’t get out much, or are deeply unhappy with many other changes that have occurred in the last 10–100 years to the English language. If you want to debate the purity of the English language, I will kindly refer you to the Monty Python Argument Department. (I know a lot of their humor is misogynistic and transphobic, but the argument department was funny!)

Now I have found that many women initially react adversely to being called ciswomen. And many other women (of transgender experience) are offended by this offendedness since they believe that implies that said women dislike the term ciswoman because they don’t acknowledge the validity of transwomen as women. (Did that sound a bit like an excerpt from Monty Python? I must be getting worse…)

The thing is, there are many reasons women object to any new prefix to woman being applied to them or to any new appellation being applied to them on the basis of their being women, and none of these reasons have anything to do with our (transgender women’s) validity as women.

Historically and politically, women have been grouped, classified and discriminated against on the basis of being women. Such classifications and discrimination has often been accompanied by being called other names: Dames, Broads, Chicks, Gals (which also has a racist history), Baby Mama, Trophy Wife, Battle Axe,... So given this background, you may know what ciswoman means. You might even explain it. But any woman is allowed to dislike being identified by a term with which they don’t identify and that doesn’t resonate with them. After all, they have been called things before that turned out to be hurtful. They naturally don’t trust your newfangled term to not hurt them again.

So I am personally using Occam’s Cis-sor and cutting out the term cisgender for ongoing use. But I am dropping the term ciswoman into the round file. And for balance, I am tossing the term transwoman as well. You may refer to me as a woman, or as Saoirse, or Ms. You can say that I am transgender, if it is any or your business. I don’t mind, but I do wonder why you care?

I am not asking anyone else to do the same. But I find that this approach let’s me have more open and nonconfrontational conversations with other women of different ages, cultures, and origins. We all identify as women together. But each or our identities is independent of the other persons experience. They don’t require my understanding or endorsement to call themselves women. They shouldn’t expect me to require their understanding or endorsement either.

Now there are many other ways to use Occam’s Cis-sor. It need not only apply to the terms containing the Latin root ‘cis’. Consider my furry feline friend’s fund of feuds with ‘transgenderism’ (which is not a belief system but more of a state of being).

Transgenderism itself is a great example. Only in this case, others have appropriated the term and are turning it into one associated with a negative political philosophy. We can argue about the word and keep saying it doesn’t mean that. But the point being made is not the word itself, it’s the implication that transgender activists are attempting to promote a harmful political philosophy. So in this case, while a short focus on dismissing the use of transgenderism is fine, our focus needs to be on the accusation and the actual evidence to the contrary. Our focus also needs to be on the actual intentional harm being called for by those calling for the destruction of transgenderism.

Another example is to examine virtually anything Matt Walsh says. Use Occam’s Cis-sor and quickly see his rhetoric boils down to, “I don’t like transgender people. They scare me. I hate them. I want them to go away. So I will demonize, bully, and demean them in as many clever ways as I can so that others join me in demonizing, bullying, and demeaning them. And if someone actually kills them, that is so sad, but they brought it on themselves…” OK, I am a little pissy about Matt Walsh, not sorry.

The key is to focus on what the person framing a statement, proposal, or argument actually means and what they actually want. Don’t get caught up in what you hear them say. Look beyond the words to what their end goal is and understand what is driving them. Only with this knowledge can you effectively oppose or deflect their aims. Only with this knowledge can you recognize a potential ally who is acting from misguided information with good intentions. You need to be prepared to oppose the former and rescue the latter.