Let’s go for a moment with your “capital” example.
Let’s make a hypothetical argument that you are a Canadian and say the federal capital of Florida is Richmond, VA. However, I, as an Floridian American, say that it’s is Washington D.C.
You look at my country and say, “Hey, no, your country is not really the country you think it is, I can see Florida right there, and I can see its Federal Capital is Richmond, VA. However, I go through a lot of bloodshed, deliver papers to Union troops under the cover of darkness, working hard to maintain what I view as the capital should be, and eventually the end of that internal struggle finishes up and I am certain that the Federal Capital of Flordia is, in fact, Washington D.C.
Now you may not check the news after that conflict, and still keep insisting it’s Richmond, VA, but you’re not the one that had to go through the internal conflict and come to an answer.
The empirical truth is that those who have worked hard to find the answer, are involved with it directly, are usually a lot more aware of the nuance, complexity, exceptions, etc. than those who just claim the emperical truth is whatever their 1863 encyclopedia says. This is the pattern of experts in fields vs generalizations.
And when you move that concept to someone’s own identity, noone is more an expert on themselves than they are. You have not fought that person’s struggles, you have not been through their emotional grinder, you have not seen, heard, or experienced what they have. You have not encountered their dysphoria, their horomone fluctuations, their identity-triggering points. You may sit her and say, “I have this one single data point, and by that I must insist on X”, but they have an entire life of data points. You do not have the empirical evidence to dictate to anyone their identity.
For example, on the hair identity, anyone who looked at me would assume I have dark brown hair. This would be “their empirical evidence.” Their data point would be one point: When they say it, they came to a conclusion. And they could be forgiven for thinking this. However, my lifelong empirical evidence proves it wrong. Brown is word for dark yellow/orange. My hair is not a darkened yellow/orange. When I have been out in the sun for extensive time periods, or bleached it, or anything without coloring it that lightens it, my hair turns a vibrant red (similar to my dad’s and sister’s naturally bright red hair). Further, when it glints in the light after being treated with any high quality conditioner, it doesn’t glint yellow, it glints red. By color mapping, my hair color is “Chocolate Cosmos”, hex color: #58111A which is considered a shade of red, which although close to auburn, has a higher red index and lower yellow index. In this, one person’s ‘empirical evidence’ of one data point who claims my hair is brown is understandable in their mistake, but it is, in fact, a mistake that I have, through more personal experience, analysis, and fact finding, have found to be wrong. I simply have more empirical evidence having literally a lifetime of more data points than does anyone who claims otherwise.
Bringing that back around to gender, there is much more to gender than what is between your legs. If that’s all it was, bigots would have no problem calling a trans woman who has gotten bottom surgery ‘woman’ and leaving it at that. But they *do* have that problem, and that tells us that there’s more at play. The bigots themselves are their own proof against themselves. Sure, there’s the ‘first off’ bit of what’s between your legs, but there’s much more. There’s natural hormone levels, genetics, social inclination, personality tendencies, and much much more. The effects of gender are pervasive throughout our entire society, both reactions to it, and rules regarding it. There is a mold that is expected to be filled. To put it more basically, think of the fundamental toddler’s game. If you had a square hole, a round hole, and hexagon peg and no hexagon hole, but people are insistant that the peg be put in a hole, you go with the one that fits best, even if its not a perfect fit. Someone may say, “It’s round-ish, it HAS to go in the round hold” or they may say, “It has corners, circles NEVER have corners. It has to go in the square hole”. What people say doesn’t matter. The situation is more complex, and they’re not the primary ones who have to deal with it. The one who actually has to deal with the situation is the one who decides what goes where, and through either decision or trial and error, finds out where it most fits. THIS is why your ‘empirical evidence’ doesn’t work. Because you don’t have all the empirical evidence. You have one data point. That’s it. You’re missing a lot that the other person has. This isn’t a “God of the gaps” argument. The gaps are purely on the side of the people who insist on a “simple” gender identity.
As for talking and cis-wording, people use the words they know, and speak from the community they reside in using the language they’re used to (An atheist is more likely to refer to a Christian as a “theist” and themselves as “atheist” while a Christian is more likely to refer to themselves as “Christian” and the atheist as “Secular”. But both can understand what the other means.) If you don’t like the word “cis”, then don’t talk gender with anyone not part of your community, and problem solved. But you responded to the OP’s message to begin with, which means you’re not limiting yourself to your community. You can use the words you want, but natural human inclination is you will be identified by the words you use. Insisting that other people use words differently is ignorant of that fact.
And, in this, the OP is quite right. Rejecting the use of “cis-gendered” IS inherently transphobic, because it is a very common term used by the trans community. If you don’t accept what it means (someone who is not trans and doesn’t not have the personal *experience* of dealing what the trans community has to deal with), and is trying to literally reject a conversational word, then you are self-identifying as someone transphobic by your rejection of vernacular. Whether correct or not, it is the social stigmata that you will be calling on yourself. A non-transphobic person doesn’t generally have problems with the concept of identity, and so in turn, doesn’t have a problem with the term “cis”, to which they’ll respond, “Yea, I’m a biological male who thinks I’m male. No big deal there.” Those who reject identity are rejecting the primary thing beyond “what’s between your legs” as what constitute gender (but I notice many are quite hypocritical and will often enforce gender roles despite the claim of ‘only’ caring whats between a person’s legs) are generally transphobes, or much more likely to be a such, hence, again, rejection of the term ‘cis’ is transphobic.
As for Sigusch’s choice of words, this wasn’t a “mix-up”. It was a very empowering move for the trans community, and is what’s called “reclaiming a term”. When an oppressed group reclaims a term, it’s breaking a weapon that was used to oppress them, reinterpreting and reusing it in a more constructive way. An example of this is when rappers use the term “Nigga” when talking about the people they care for. It reclaimed an old racist term from the south, and added their own spin to it. It ceased to have the connotation of “a mentally inferior person who should just let the white man command him” to “a badass m@#%fu@#er who will pop a cap in the ass of someone who triest to control him.” You can complain about linguistics all you want, but this is about fight against oppression. Trans no longer means ‘transformation’. It means ‘to cover the breadth’ which allows it to be a lifelong state and with the use of cis- prefix for non-trans, that’s what it will always mean from that point on. The weapon of attack has been broken and countered. Anger at the term ‘cis-’ is also a rejection of the breaking of that tool of oppression, which again means that rejection of ‘cis-’ as a prefix in cisgendered is rejecting that fight against oppression. However, it’s too late, that tool of oppression has been eliminated, and hatred towards its breaking, again, only serves to socially identify a person as a transphobic bigot.
As for the hair-identity comment at the end, it is not impertinent to seek community with other people, especially those who are oppressed and if you’re willing to take on the struggles they do as well, and help them with theirs.
