On the Use of Labels

Some of you may have noticed I've started using "cis" and "TAB" and so on a lot more when I write here about things that don't necessarily concern the person's status with regard to those labels, and a couple have asked why. I'll use the "cis" label as my example, but this applies to hetero/bi/homo, and white/POC, and TAB/differently abled, equally, as well as many other possible pairings of identity labels, which I'm not going into only for not wanting to wear out my fingers typing great bloody lists. You're smart folk; you can apply the rule more generally yourselves.

For me, it's because I came to be annoyed by the constant practice, in the media, that whenever a trans person is involved in the news, the label "trans" is always, always applied, even when there's no relevance whatsoever to the article's actual subject.

And it came to me that if I only ever use "cis" when I'm talking about trans-oriented stories, then I may as well not use it, as it doesn't serve any purpose better than just leaving it out does. It's just as othering as leaving it out, if that's the only time it's used.

So in order to draw attention to the pointless and irrelevant way the label "trans" is often used, I am striving to use "cis" in equally pointless and irrelevant ways.

While, yes, some folk bear the label of "trans" with great pride, and publicly proclaim their identity as such, it should be recognized that whether or not someone wants that label publicly used should be something which a reporter with good ethics asks the interviewee/subject, not which is applied every single time whether relevant or not.

Now, you can go back and do a search and replace on "cis" and "trans" with any other grouping of labels as I mentioned at the beginning of the post. If we only use the mainstream label to specifically contrast it with the non-mainstream one, then we may as well not bother.