103

“Just write the characters as actual people” seems the foundation of writing good characters.

I think if you’re writing a protagonist who is transgender, or give the player the option of that, that bears some more research (so you know what you’re writing about - I don’t even know half the pronouns developed for not-he-or-she, so researching that would be something I’d do if it came up), but it seems like all good characters have to start by being written as actual people. Some are transgender, some are gay, some are hopelessly confused by the whole business - but you can’t write a good _____ if you don’t know how to write good characters.

It doesn’t matter what the specifics are. Just because I’m a male-who-identifies-as-male doesn’t mean my sloppier writings are good because they involved other male-identifying-as-male people.

Edited to add: All of the above is merely my best understanding of the topic, I will happily stand corrected if in error.

104

Except that calling someone “non-something” implies deviation from norm and generally negative connotations.
Imagine having a discussion about the gender pay gap and referring to men as “not-women” in the conversation…the uproar that would cause.

Saying “cis men” and “trans men” is just a way of saying that both are no more or less normal and no more or less men, just different.[quote=“P_Tigras, post:101, topic:16920”]
I think of myself first and foremost as a human being.
[/quote]
I think most people do.

There’s a need to have conversations on gender issues and that’s really not possible without polite vocabulary specific to those issues and the people concerned.
It doesn’t take away from anyone’s individuality and doesn’t pigeon hole their identity.
Or in that case do you think talking about people by referring to their nationality is offensive? Unless there are broad generalizations being thrown around I personally don’t think so. It’s just a part of their identity and doesn’t presume to imply anything about their personality, lifestyle, hobbies, likes and dislikes and whatnot.
Sometimes you need to be able to talk about japanese people or australian people, just as you need to be able to talk about trans people and cis people.

If someone comes up with a term they deem more appropriate then great. In the meantime people are gonna continue to express themselves with what vocabulary they have available.

6 Likes
105

All too often when I hear the term “cis man” used, it’s used negatively to stereotype. It gives me insight into why some of my African American friends don’t like being referred to as a “black man”.

1 Like
106

Offensive this, offensive that.
Now, who said anything about that?

Never mind me ‘lil ol’ me, I’m just talking up here in the wind.

I personally prefer to be labeled as “puffer fish,” “doggie,” “frank,” or “stupid bitch who talks too much.”

2 Likes
107

I always wondered why they’d even want to be called “African American”, to be honest. Especially when “white” people are commonly referred to as just “American”. Wouldn’t it by this

logic mark them as “less than American” by default?

(As someone who only knows stuff about America from various media and has never set foot on that side of the ocean that terminology has always sounded rather counter-productive to me.)

108

Americans have a long history of celebrating their ethnic heritage whether they be Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Chinese Americans or some other. Thus the term African American was coined to be used in the same spirit.

For the longest time criminal searches started with color and then physical sex, as in “Be on the look-out for a black male, presumed armed and dangerous, wanted for the rape/murder/etc…” and most of the time the suspected criminal being searched for seemed to be a black male. This fostered the stereotype of the black male criminal and made many African American men uncomfortable with “black male” or “black man” because they kept be using in the context of criminals. I think sensitivity has slowly decreased over time as law enforcement has made a point of being more considerate in the way they mention a suspect’s color, but it isn’t entirely gone yet.

1 Like
109

I want help with a scene in my game, where our character now a teen, starting discover how really see him herself. In my game you are born with the “traditional” binary genders but in a world where magic shapes noble born our mind and deeper emotions could shape people bodies, and people experience that with adolescence and hormones. I just want give everyone a chance to make a character that feels realistic and maybe represent everyone. I hope do it right, so I please asking for feedback. I know I am a terrible writer and no one wants to read my wip . But this is important to me so please read the small rough draft of the scene. I don’t even ask for reading the wip.

110

Mara; you are a better writer in English then you lead me to believe… I enjoyed your scene.

The choice I liked very much was this:

[quote] However one thing is the body and other how society label each gender. Magic society is equalitarian, but The mascarade, the shroud that maintain commoners unaware of our existence is gender segregationist. What image I want to show to them, will be important later on in my life.
*fake_choice
#I think I am comfortable with an appearance that matches a male role
#I think I am comfortable with a female look.
#I don’t care about commoners rules about decorum.I will wear and act like I want [/quote]

The one after that I was not as keen on but I’m a binary person so maybe that is why.

Good job so far.

1 Like
111

Honestly I see nothing wrong with MtF, FtM, or transsexual. I feel like they are valid terms that more or less define our sociological roles and how they are viewed within wider society. I feel that taking offense to something like this is just spliting hairs at this point. Yes, yes I get that I was holistically never “male” in the first place, but externally, anatomically, and external sociologically I was a boy who transitioned into a girl and MtF covers that just fine.

112

Well, The muggles are living in a society similar to Victorian age. The emperor of the main empire is directly Victoria. So in that society, it would be a plot hole like a mountain let people show itself freely without consequences. However, if you choose the third option you could show as you really are to them but of course that could affect your character in a future.

114

We don’t? This isn’t a complaint I’ve run into before. I’ve always found it useful and descriptive, and appropriate for a slightly more formal register than when I’d just use “gay,” or even just for some variety’s sake. It also works well with the terms “heterosexual,” “bisexual,” “asexual,” “pansexual,” “demisexual,” and the like.

Tons of people have already said a bunch of wonderful stuff on this topic (as well they should, considering how many replies there are between this and me writing now). To add on:
Certainly it will depend on the story. Let’s start by considering those stories which reflect real life. In some settings, certainly their are more people of some identities than others. However, this is often used as an excuse to focus solely on the more commonplace story. Take gender for example… we really ought to see an equal balance of male-dominated and female-dominated stories (alongside plenty of more evenly balanced ones!), but it’s the former that exist in predominance. An individual story taken in and of itself does not become bad just because of what cross section of identities it has or doesn’t have. Taken as a whole, however, it’s pretty blatantly obvious that certain types of people far and away dominate storytelling.

People say “why should I make the choice to include minorities…” but every time you include majorities that is just as much of a choice. If someone needs a reason to write, say, a cast full of Deaf Latino trans men and lesbian intersex biracial people with schizophrenia who are also left-handed and have gluten allergies (and are vampires, why not?), then it is just as much the case that you need a reason to write able-bodied neurotypical cisgender white heterosexual men. Sometimes that reason can be as simple as “these people exist in reality.” But if your only reason is “these people exist in reality” and they all keep turning out the majority way, then it ceases to be a representation of reality. If your reason is “I’m writing about a segregated institution,” then sure, there are plenty of those that are interesting to write about… but if all the segregated institutions being written about are for the majority, that too is neglecting a vast swath of human experience.

If you’re writing something nonrealistic, then you pretty much get to make up the rules. But, while I have no objection to fantasy medieval Europe as a setting in and of itself (I’ve certainly used it), I do have an objection when fantasy as a whole represents that and neglects all the other possible fantasy counterparts (not to mention the rewarding task of fantasy settings that correspond directly to no specific Earth culture).

As for the topic of “cis.” While I certainly agree with the point that it’s, well, not nice to call someone something they’ve specifically said not to call them, I really do wish to throw my voice in with those who consider it useful.

(I realized this ended up a bit TLDR. Just in case, I’m quoting my conclusion up here:"my main point is that, if you object to the word “cis” but are fine with “trans,” that’s a double standard. )

I’d like to draw an analogy with the term “heterosexual.” So the term “homosexual” came first, and at that point psychologists were pretty much just talking about “homosexuals and… you know, normal non-deviant people.” (Well, when they weren’t calling us “Inverts” or the like.)

So, wasn’t it nice when they came up with a term to refer to heterosexual people as well? They took an exact analogy, even, where “homo” means “same,” and “hetero” means “different.” This didn’t serve to insult heterosexual people (I mean, it was mostly heterosexual people using these terms). To the contrary, it normalized sexual orientation, rather than the terminology simply marking the “other.” (And then other terms came later, as additional important improvements.)

(It’s also a darned lot better than the term “straight,” which implies correctness and normality, but that would appear to be a losing battle.)

"Transgender and “cisgender” are direct analogues of the above. It even follows the model of using the same prefix system. (“Trans” meaning “across” and “cis” meaning “same side of.”) So again, instead of just marking trans people as the “other,” it’s making it so that we have words for multiple sides. (Really, it’s just like the Romans having a Cisalpine Gaul and a Transalpine Gaul. Gaul on Rome’s side of the Alps; Gaul on the other side. Gender on the designated-at-birth concept; gender across from the designated-at-birth concept.)

Or take “Deaf” and “hearing.” Am I going to feel like my identity’s being boxed in as a hearing person because I’m being labeled for my non-deafness? It’s just a useful way to talk about people who aren’t deaf without saying “people who aren’t deaf” all the time.

Also, it’s just a whole lot easier for people in the advantaged group not to have to think of themselves as a member of that advantaged group. When you’re part of a disadvantaged group, you don’t have that luxury; life is going to remind you. As a homosexual person, although I get a say in whether or not I want that term applied to me, it still ends up being a part of life that it is simply impossible to be unaware of. As a cis person*, however, in the course of my regular life I can usually ignore it. It really only comes up when I choose to think about it or people talk about it or I just hear one of these words. So terms like “cisgender” or “heterosexual” or even “hearing” end up being a way to describe those identities at the same level that society normally describes transgender, [insert lots of options]sexual and Deaf people. It’s a way of acknowledging that to identify one’s gender with the sex assigned at birth, to feel sexual attraction to the opposite one, to be able to hear, etc., are just as much “things” as the alternatives are.

I mean, I can agree with not liking to see identities used as insults, like what people were describing with cis-het***. (I can say as a general rule that I dislike insults.) But I do think this terminology provides useful words which directly describe majorities using the same level of language that is apparently normal for minorities. (Cis-het might be different. I’ve never seen someone called trans-het or trans-homo. It still doesn’t carry the same weight as insults that have the prejudice of society backing them up, though.)

So really my main point is that, if you object to the word “cis” but are fine with “trans,” that’s a double standard.

(If I want to be super-pedantic, I probably feel more cis-ish than fully cis. But cis enough to be advantaged. Naturally, if anyone else doesn’t really feel cis, then don’t call them cis if they don’t want to be. I’m not in the business of invalidating anyone here*)

**(Is that a business? Could I make money? "I charge $100 an hour to invalidate identities. First call of business; claiming that people are incorrect in identifying as human but are actually hot air balloons.)

***(Could I identify as cishomo? I shall pronounce it “sea-show-moe” and be disappointed if I don’t see someone named Moe emerging from the waves.)

For those who just don’t like the sound of “cis”… on a pleasanter note, the Classical Latin pronunciation would’ve been much like the English word “kiss.” Sounds nice to me :slight_smile:

11 Likes
115

I meant that younger gay men generally tend not to like it. I’m not talking about specific cases. A lot of people I know do not like it.

116

I agree with MtF and FtM, but I think that it depends on each person. Generally, at least in my experience, you just have to ask the person you’re talking to how they’d prefer to be called. Like, I’ve met a number of older trans individuals you are A-OK with transsexual but several more younger trans individuals who prefer not to be referred that way.
So long as you don’t linger on the subject too long, it’s not a real problem.

2 Likes
117

Well, I certainly don’t mean to imply that that’s wrong in any way. I was merely expressing some surprise (and maybe got a little defensive about why I like to use the term).

A little googling showed me that some people dislike it because it seems clinical and imposed, while the term “gay” comes from the gay subculture itself. I didn’t really have a problem with this because I just considered it descriptive, but I can understand that perspective.

Do you know if that’s what their objection was, or if there’s something else to it? I wonder how widespread this is.

2 Likes
118

That’s mostly it, but they’ve also cited a dislike of it because they feel that homophobes are more Iikely to call them homosexuals than gay people.

2 Likes
119

@TSSL I have known several people who don’t prefer ‘homosexual’ because not only is it clinical, it can also be reminiscent of some old studies and ideas with rather unfortunate premises. ‘Gay’ is preferred as it doesn’t have the ‘studies’ connotation, and has historically been a very positive, upbeat word. I’ve known people who feel this way about the term on a couple of different continents, but they were all city people. I don’t know how widespread the feeling is generally.

2 Likes
120

@RedRoses and @Fiogan

That all makes sense. Thanks for informing me :slight_smile: I can see that people’s different experiences will result in the same words getting different connotations.

3 Likes
121

Speaking of lingering on a subject:

When I feel nervous, I make spreadsheets.

So I used Google to take a thoroughly unscientific opportunity sample of occurrences in which the word cis, or some derivative thereof, appeared on the CoG forums. I stopped at 101 because some of us have to go to work.

Among other things, I tallied each time that I felt like I was supposed to roll my eyes (because you know how those cis people are). The following is extremely subjective.

Of the occurrences I found, 29 of them were about proper usage of the word cis, so I only looked at the 72 that actually referred to people.

A few things I noticed:

  • 11% of occurrences came from cisgender people referring to themselves. They tended to say cis. Only one used cis-het and no one used cisgender.

  • There were only eight eye rolls in the whole bunch. That’s 12.5%.

  • When one forum member’s posts were excluded from my unscientific sample, the eye rolls dropped to 4%. This difference could be due in part to a reverse halo effect (i.e. this one forum member said a few snarky things, and now I’m more likely to interpret any of their mentions of cis as being eye-roll worthy).

  • There were only 5 uses of cishet. One was a cishet man referring to himself, 2 struck me as neutral, and 2 led me to roll my eyes. I came away feeling better about cishet.

  • I found exactly one usage of the word cis that I could only interpret as an insult intended to belittle another forum member (it was basically a stand-in for “stupid and worthless”)—and that forum member was @P_Tigras.

  • One other eye roll was a bit nasty, but the word itself was not necessarily pejorative. The remaining six eye rolls were well within the bounds of civility (in my opinion), and it could be argued that they say more about my own paranoia than anything else. One eye roll was probably the result of a grammatical error.

Therefore I submit for your consideration, @P_Tigras, that there is no inherent pejorative undertone in the term cisgender or its derivatives (cis, heterocis, cis man/woman, etc), that the term itself is here to stay, and that any associated negative affect is not only atypical but also derived from the term’s context, independent of the commonly accepted connotations of the word itself.

I do so with the hope that continued exposure to it (probably inevitable) will dull the intensity of your dislike, and eventually lead to acceptance. You too, @Savriss and Puffer Fish. The subjective nature of this exercise does not diminish my confidence in this conclusion.

Wow, that took way too much of my time. At least I’m not nervous anymore.

1 Like
122

@BabbleYaggle I’ve heard the very same sort of “reasoning” used to invalidate and explain away the feelings and complaints of various groups, many of them disadvantaged, as irrational and baseless. Of course the writer of the piece never takes into consideration their own inherent biases.

I don’t see this discussion going anywhere productive so I’m going to bow out.

1 Like
123

I should have added that my observations were in no way intended to diminish the validity of anyone’s objections to being called by any particular term. I’m with @Fairygodfeather on that score. That’s a pretty big omission on my part.

I was more motivated by my own concern (should I stop using cishet to refer to anyone?), and was happy at what I found despite the fact that someone else would get different numbers with the same information. So I thought I’d address a couple of other people who had concerns too. If the concerns persist, so be it. They have their reasons.

But I agree, we’ve strayed a bit from how to write marginalized characters, and this tangent has probably played itself out.