The case against 'cis'

Using cis to mean non-trans and creating the cis/trans dichotomy ignores that there are people with gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria who don't identify as trans, some who never do and never transition, others who detransition. That part of the group is not small - by the GIRES's own stats that they put forth to Parliament, 4/5ths of their estimated population with dysphoric symptoms will never seek medical transition. That leaves 1/5th left of which some will detransition, sometimes repeatedly. How can they be called cis, it makes no sense for a dysphoric person to labelled as 'on the same side of', it's weird to use chemistry terms for it at all, but that's what is happening with this.

16ish years ago when I first transitioned, cis was not a thing. To me, it's like having a word for people without depression, you can't say they're all able or even mentally well because there are dozens of other options there. Labelling people as not something doesn't really work well and I think it's pretty toxic to expect people to label themselves as not-something.

End game is what I said on here about 4 years ago!

We have men (everyone knows who they are)
Women (who used to be men)
And ? non-people (which handily reflects the position of women in most of the world already, and the posiiton that women were in in the rest of the world until relatively very recently)

Faire "In any case, if the word 'cis' means 'real', the transwomen will want it applied to them too."

I have seen trans who are post all surgery and hormone treatment call themselves cis already

"For one it implies that you make a conscious thought that "my gender and sex align""

Loads of women especially when we're girls spend an awful lot of time feeling unhappy with both their gender roles and the consequences of the sex of their body, and for really quite a considerable number this unhappiness translates into deeper feelings resulting in sefl harm, eating disorders, risky behaviour etc

I suspect there are men who feel the same about their role. Although interestingly when girls develop eating disorders they often seem to be aound getting smaller - we don't want to be noticed, we want to hide - often due to the development of breasts etc and the unwanted attention we get and also due to sexual abuse - while boys with eating disorders generally seem to be trying to get bigger - bulk up all muscly at least that's my understanding. That's a very different aim, if it is true. I'm not an expert just my thoughts.

Honestly women and transwomen works fine.

I suspect that in 30 years people younger than us will look at this discussion the same way we look at people in the 80s and 90s saying "I'm not straight I'm just normal"

I've seen that example used before but it isn't the right analogy.

There is a word for women who are not trans. It's woman.

There was not word for people who were not gay.

In any case, if the word 'cis' means 'real', the transwomen will want it applied to them too.

In fact, however you try to differentiate between women and transwomen they won't like it because they want to be the same as women, not different!

As it's turned out, the way I look is fairly stereotypically feminine (and I think that is natural for me rather than conditioned) but my interests and behaviour are often more stereotypically masculine (apparently).

Are you me? I look very feminine and love makeup, but hobbies wise I’m all science, documentaries, gaming and debating. I also get told I speak “like a man”, whatever the fuck that means (straightforward without bullshit apparently).

I have aspergers and for me I just feel like a person. I am a female person because I have a vagina, but I have never been “stereotypically” female in my hobbies or ideas.

I don’t get why some activists think that means they’re the opposite gender though. It just means gender as a concept is bloody stupid.

I have aspergers and in hindsight, feeling different was just down to that, nothing to do with gender feels.

There was a long thread a few months ago, here. About people on the spectrum and the trans ideology.

I'm paraphrasing, and forgive me if I get it wrong, but it was fascinating. The posters were saying that as they didn't recognise gender signals, it never occurred to them to have their preferences dictated by their sex.

Hence their preferences automatically including both masculine and feminine.

It's also well documented that autism is over represented in the trans-community.

Presumably because if you cannot feel your sex (as you imagine others do) based on preferences that, quite naturally, don't fit either box, the trans-ideology can seem appealing. Or something of a solution to that feeling.

If we could remove every gendered signal that existed, I should imagine that most people would have a far greater mix of masculinity and femininity in their preferences.

For one it implies that you make a conscious thought that "my gender and sex align". Personally, I have never had this thought.

In fact, I dare say most people don't, and it's only the ones that would rather be the opposite sex who have these thoughts.

Btw, this links in nicely with the fact that the argument always boils down to "I feel like a woman ergo I am a woman". "What does feel like to be a woman mean"? Proceeds to list stereotypes.

Seer I also like Datun's point about woman simply being a biological description like mare or ewe, and so not needing anything else.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot today, oddly enough.

A cow is a female bovine. A bull is a male bovine. When you castrate a young bull, it becomes a bullock. Nobody could ever suggest it becomes a cow.

But even as I thought it, I imagined the squeals of outrage that I had dared to compare TIMs to an animal!

I think we should stop using 'ladybrain' in reference to TIMs. The only kind of lady brain is the brain of the physical sex female and there are differences. A biological male cannot have a lady brain.

They can feel like they are a woman, but will still have male genetics and underlying male anatomy and physiology. This is a purely psychological and emotional matter with no basis in physical reality.

There is no cis, there are females of the human species who we call women and there are males, some of whom like to dress as women and by called by a name given to females. A small proportion remove their male genitals and take female hormones in order to grow breast tissue and reduce their male characteristics.

I don't get their argument anyway, on the one hand they shout from the rooftops that they are real women, but then separate themselves by including the cis label for any woman who is an actual biological female, thus identifying themselves as anything but a woman. As a woman I don't need to claim my space as a woman, I simply am.

An interesting one would be to make gender nonconformity the protected characteristic. So you can't be fired for it, denied housing, medical care, anything - on the basis of it.

I think that sounds good. My only concern would be that people with AGP would exploit this for all its worth. And people like the Stephonknee's of this world and the paedophile who recently tried to pretend he was transage when he assaulted a child.

Yes, I really think Datun's onto something here.

It would make explicit that there are competing rights at work, rather than this under-the-radar colonisation of spaces that were created by the protected characteristic, sex.

I agree perking, sex and gender identity should be considered completely separate characteristics for the purposes of law and policy.

The elision of the two creates enormous problems, muddies the waters and leads to bad law & injustice.

The thing about "cis" meaning "not trans" has to take into account the meaning of trans also. "Trans" has become an umbrella term, meaning everything from "(1)someone who has body dysphoria regarding their sex" to "(2)someone who prefers the clothing, hobbies, interests, etc. socially assigned to the opposite sex" to "(3)someone who feels they have an internal 'gender identity' that does not match their assigned sex." If "cis" simply meant "person who does not experience body dysphoria regarding their sex" then that would be one thing. But it doesn't. It can also mean "someone who prefers the socially constructed gender role of their sex" and "someone who feels they have an internal 'gender identity' that matches their sex." Neither of which can accurately describe the majority of women and men who are not perfect stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. As for "gender identity," well, previous posters and previous threads have ripped that one apart pretty well, an internal gender identity is as much an article of faith than anything else. Most people don't seem to have one.

It seems that when people try to defend the use of "cis," they rely strictly on definition #1. This is because it sounds fairly reasonable to say "'cis' just means 'not trans,' how could anybody object to that?" But in practice, that's not how it works. Using "cis" definitely implies that the person is not only "not trans" but that they also are happy with their gender role and have an innate sense of gender identity. Anyway you slice it, it comes back to that.

In practical usage it's become an insult.

Someone on here once said "I don't have a gender. I have a sex and a personality."

Yes this. Gender to me is an entirely externally imposed concept.

At the park other people guess the gender of my blue clothed daughter at the top of the climbing frame & tell me my boy is so adventurous. Obviously it would be inappropriate for them to check her sex!

An interesting one would be to make gender nonconformity the protected characteristic. So you can't be fired for it, denied housing, medical care, anything - on the basis of it.

But, at the same time, you don't get ceded rights from other protected characteristics like a woman's sex.

It would mean anyone, trans-, agender, femme, non-binary, bitch women, effeminate men, could all be included under the term gender nonconforming.

I haven't heard a downside to that concept. There probably is one, but I can't think of it!

That looks a very interesting and useful idea. As you say, to be used in addition to rather than instead of sex being a protected characteristic.

Maybe there will turn out to be a downside, but definitely seems worth exploring. I think it would puncture a number of balloons nicely.

Why is it useful to create a word opposite to trans ? Majority of people (99%) have no problems being referred to as their biological sex so a label is totally unnecessary - it is used out to make a victimhood of trans and cis the oppressors. Also why should i be labelled cis to identify me as different to someone with agp!!

And yes I agree about non-binary. Although I appreciate the concept, it's another label with which to 'other' everybody else.

Seer

datun if I'm understanding you correctly, a downside could be that gender non-confirming women (ie most of us on this thread) wouldn't gain access to a women's refuge.

Sex is already a protected characteristic. Which is why, currently, transactivists are pushing for self identification in terms of rape refuge counsellors. It would grant them a GRC, at which point they will be legally women and entitled to work there.

At the moment gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Which is fairly meaningless, as you can simply say to your best friend you're thinking of transitioning, and that covers it.

Whereas gender nonconformity, would stop it being broken down into all these individual boxes. Some of which seem to assume the rights of women, the other protected characteristic.

I find the way the equality law is applied incredibly confusing.

Because it appears to only be applicable in few situations.

All women shortlists for Parliamentary candidates, for instance.

They would, on the surface, appear to discriminate against men. But, from what I can tell, the equality law can be invoked using the sex of women as a protected characteristic. To make it legal. Because it redresses the current imbalance.

It always feels a bit back to front to me.

The equality law cannot be invoked in toilets, for instance. Because there is no law that excludes men. It's just protocol and custom.

You do have to provide sanitary disposal. Because if you didn't, it would prevent women from using them. Thereby being discriminatory on the basis of sex.

I was involved in an awful long thread about the way the equality law and the gender recognition act work, and at the end, although I had a better grasp, I still floundered.

I suppose you can't make it a law that the opposite sex can't use each other's toilets. Because there are so many incidences where that would be breached.

Although I think I could have a pretty good stab at it!