The case against 'cis'

So any woman from big butch lesbians to pink ballerinas would all be welcome at the women's refuge because they are biologically women.

gender non-confirming women (ie most of us on this thread) wouldn't gain access to a women's refuge

The solution to this is, yes, protect gender non-conformity, but also maintain sex as a protected category and base current women's protected spaces on sex not gender going forward.

Disrespectful, unwanted, unnecessary and of course misgendering and therefore literal violence aimed at women.

Seer no I don't think so because being a woman and having access to a women's refuge is based on biology and sex, not gender expectations if the word 'woman'.

And I'm not cis because I am not an isomer. I don't believe that sex and gender can form an isomeric relationship to each other like arrangements in a chemical molecule. One is material, objective and definite, the other is ethereal, subjective and tautological. You can describe an isomeric relationship between physical things or abstact concepts. Gender is an abstact concept that always requires an external concrete referrant - biological sex, otherwise it is circular and meaningless. There's no sex/gender crossover/alignment. Sex is always the fundamental and gender is the superstructure arrangement placed around that to best utilise the sex differences to the benefit of the ruling class.

The issue with cis for me regardless of its meaning (which I believe is wrong) is it is a label being applied to people who didn’t ask for it and didn’t want it. It’s disrespectful to do that to people and if it is done to other groups people would be quite rightly up in arms about it. Because it’s women, no one gives a fuck.

My ds was identified as a male at 14 weeks gestation from his dna. It’s not a medical professional who decides what sex you are when you’re born, it’s written into the code that makes you.

I've had blue hair

I don't understand the need to apply a specific name to everything nowadays.

It feels like people have to have a name for doing anything which doesn't traditionally conform to their gender role. For example you can't just be a man who enjoys dancing, you have to be genderfluid or whatever. It's getting ridiculous.

I am not cis anything. I am just a woman and anyone who says otherwise can fuck off.

I think the essay by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper that TerfClub has shared on another thread is an excellent argument against the cis label:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3163402-Rebecca-Reilly-Coopers-article-essay-about-gender?watched=1&msgid=75486220#75486220

Being cis means being not trans.

NO. No, no, no, no, no.

Calling oneself cis means that one has become a follower of the genderist religion. It means that one no longer thinks gender is an externally imposed system of power relations. It means one sees gender as an innate, subjective personal essence, a soul if you will.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that human beings have souls, gendered or otherwise. I do not believe in dualism of any kind.

Cis is the imposition of religion on me as an atheist just as gender is an imposition of unequal power status on me as a woman.

I am offended by cis. I do not consent to being called cis - and even if I did subscribe to the genderist religion, my genderist caste would be agender. BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IN GENDER.

MsBeaujangles

Whilst I agree that non binary is an accurate description of many people, the problem starts occurring when it is assigned rights.

Assigning rights based on a feeling that is objectively unidentifiable and non-verifiable can't possibly work.

Which is how we have seen the issue of self identification explode. It's based purely on what someone says.

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!

*two

I sort of agree with Trills that there is a good chance cis will be common parlance in a decade or too. After all it is often younger generations that shape language going forward.

Doesn't mean I like it or agree with it though. Women have had many labels foisted on them that they never wanted.

Reading some of the above points, I am beginning to think that the way forward for those of us who are gender critical may be to declare ourselves non binary. We can talk about the distress that we experience when gender stereotypes and expectations are coersively imposed upon us. The only way to relieve ourselves of this distress is for people to refer to our biology only when defining us/ referring to us.
I don't think this is far from the truth for many posters anyway (the distress that is!)

Trills, can I ask (honestly not picking holes!) - if you agree with the idea of labelling yourself as cis, but disagree that you subscribe to the stereotype of female gender, why do you not view yourself as non binary or agender?

Cis doesn't just mean not trans, it's Latin - it has an actual definition, which is "on the same side as".

I really struggle with 'gender fluid'

First, how can an identity be a fluid? Or what does it mean?

Second, if it just means 'gender identity can fluctuate' how can anyone argue that we should be protecting a class of people based on such an unreliable characteristic?

I thought on the Scottish consultation one of the most head scratching questions was the one about non - binary and gender fluid people.

What legal protections do these people not have? What ways can they be singled out for inclusion that isn't already available to them (and the rest of us)?

I think going the route of asking what gender means etc might be the most helpful. Even if I can't win the argument (given how moveable the goal posts are), it might at least make some people stop and think a bit.

Is a good one, because it makes people think.

You might also slip in the word lady brain.

Because, essentially, that's what they're saying. That men and women think differently. Not because of their bodies, not because of the way they are treated, just an innate, different way of thinking. And, in the case of trans, men are thinking like women.

If you could steer it in that direction, you will have people definitely questioning it. Most people will definitely pause if they are being told that women think in a certain way. Because they know damn well that it will be a way that disadvantages women. Irrational, emotional, etc.

And, it's clearly nonsense. Men and women do not think differently.

But it's quite hard to dismiss thousands of years of assumption unless you force the questions.

'Lady brain', to anyone with an ounce of critical thought will certainly start the ball rolling.

"I don't mean a lady brain! I mean an inner feeling"

So ask them describe it. With every single word in the English language at their disposal, describe that feeling.

And watch the sexism unfold...

agender means not having any internal sense of gender id

according to the things I have read this is "rare" !!!!!!!!!!!

of course if middle aged women start saying they are agender, people will simply disregard this statement. as per what the poster above did.

Obviously if I say I am agender and therefore fall under the trans unbrella, people will think it's fucking ridiculous. So we don't actually get to define our own genders at all really, do we.

"Cis" implies you accept your place in the gender hierarchy.

It's a "women, know your place" word.