Quote:
Originally Posted by naraht
As a note, cis and trans as prefixes viewed as opposites goes back centuries as a concept in Chemistry. (for example) two Carbons linked by a double bond one of which has a Hydrogen and a Chlorine and the other a Hydrogen and a Fluorine exist in two forms. Cis, where the Chlorine and Flourine are on the same side of the carbon bond and trans where they are across from each other.
|
True, and good point. But in chemistry, “cis” and “trans” describe the position of atoms or groups across a double bond. They’re valid, measurable structural configurations. No one is disputing that. But that’s exactly my point. So, in chemistry, “cis” and “trans” have a physical basis. You can observe them with spectroscopy or a microscope. They’re not subjective labels, they describe a molecule’s geometry.
So like, in human biology, “cis” is ideological, not structural. No biologist ever needed “cis” to describe normal sexual reproduction. The terms “male” and “female” have worked fine for centuries because they actually map onto our reproductive system, chromosomes, and gametes. “Cisgender” didn’t come from embryology or genetics, it came from gender theory. Its purpose is to reframe normal biological categories as just one version of an identity spectrum, so “trans” feels equally original. But unlike cis/trans isomers, a man identifying as a woman doesn’t physically flip chromosomes the way a double bond flips atoms. It’s not structural, it’s social.
So yeah, “cis/trans” in chemistry is real, observable, and testable. “Cis/trans” in sex categories is marketing. One is about measurable bonds, while the other is about feelings. Huge difference.
But I appreciate you bringing up the chemistry, it actually proves my point.
Threaded Mode