GC protected belief and use of cis

For me, cis and trans labels are typically used in work place discussions when gender labels aren't relevant to the topic of discussion. Typically, this is when the discussion relates to sex and sexed bodies. Here, 'cis' is used to refer to the persons natal sex and 'trans' is used to refer to 'not their natal sex'

In these situation I just ask about the relevance of people's gender to the discussion and suggest we don't categorise where it isn't needed.

The thing that I have a real problem with about this, that others have mentioned.

Following prevailing 'rules'

Gender ID is in your brain
You can't tell by looking at someone what their gender is as gender presentation is separate
Misgendering is hurtful and possibly abusive

And yet women are deemed cis without being asked. With no consideration that many women and girls may not be cis (putting aside the large number who don't have one/ think the whole thing is bizarre)

So why are women and girls assumed to be cis if they don't declare a trans ID/ change their pronouns etc?

That's assigning a gender and that is not ok.

Personally I have no issue with the term cis. I have friends who identify as such, and that is their perogative.

What I do have issue with is:

• the assumption some one is cis unless they have explicitly identified as such
• the concept cis plus trans women make the entire population of women (irrespective of whether TWAW)

I have come to the conclusion gender identity is a real thing for some people. I still don't understand what relevance it is beyond certain social situations , but would appreciate if those to whom its real do not assume the gender identity of the silent majority.

So in the case in point, I would either ignore the intranet directives for cis women, or more likely, be offended that I was having an implied gender identity forced upon me.

Most people if pushed are probably agender. Not many of us fully and wholly subscribe to the characteristics ascribed to our sex and probably mostly consider ourselves to be non binary or agender but within a female or male body.

I was wondering also about this in this weeks BBC's article about Quinn, a Canadian non-binary footballer:

"Most people, unless they're non-binary, have a gender identity of male or female."

'Cis' effectively insists that gender stereotypes are real and that they're natural for most women.
I believe strongly in free speech and if people want to believe that, they are free to do so. If people want to bang on about 'cis' outside of work, that's their right, the same as they're welcome to believe in other nonsense like surrendered wives and the like.
However, sex is a protected characteristic and something as deeply sexist as 'cis' has no place being integrated into workplace policies.
I would find it deeply concerning that a company was officially integrating gender stereotyping into how it treated its employees and how it expected them to behave.

I wonder if it's similar to calling someone an 'apostate' or other terms used to describe non-believers - tolerated, in context, but impolite at best and certainly not something a supposedly objective, neutral organisation should be using.

Using 'cis' aligns you with a certain ideology/political viewpoint that most people don't ascribe to. A body like an employer, for example, should presumably avoid using terms like 'Tory' or 'leftie' in the same way as they'd avoid 'cis'.

I would suggest individuals are free to use the term as they please, and others are free to make them aware that they find it offensive and object.

Could a complaint be made to the BBC about the use of the term cis?

Well I wouldn't go and report it but if I was called that at work I'd feel much more comfortable now asking them not to and then, if they got arsey, I might even suggest we went to HR together to talk about it.

OffYouGoNow

Joolz the term was used multiple times on work intranet, including with reference to how ‘cis’ women cause harm if they don’t allow TW into women’s spaces and how views of such women could be considered as hate speech.

Hmmmm
That puts a slightly different light on your original question (which - pardon me - read as a hypothetical ... if this were to happen, will this approach be acceptable given the legal judgement just passed ... etc)

Somebody else on this thread said (Hang on, I'll get the quote ... )

WotgunShedding

Surely whatever the rules are for misgendering would be applicable here?

Whatever is considered harassment for misgendering would have to be equally applicable to the use of cis?

Which seems to be balanced ...

But I guess that a quiet 'don't use that phrase/word, it adds nothing to the debate' approach would be the first line of argument.

If people are still doing it, then Escalate ... of course

DS had one of these external groups in to tech the whole relationships and sex stuff.

Yes they have a shit tonne of trans and gender materials, and did use the C word (which DS knows is a finger jabbing term). It wasn’t as bad as some ive seen and did follow the law.

Not quite the same, but I’d like to see the BBC held to account for this. When they use terms like “cis” and “sex assigned at birth” in their features, they are immediately and automatically not neutral. They are using the terminology of one particular political ideology as if it were neutral, objective and factual terminology. Which it blatantly isn’t. Gross misuse of their power and reach, and deeply detrimental to the rights of women.

A form of collective harassment of their GC viewers/readers (and an attempt at indoctrination of their unaware viewers/readers) in my eyes.

Definitely a partisan perspective, which goes against their charter, does it not?

Also - more general, surely policies where they state ‘cis’ could be classed as undermining equality law - if not harassment - as it is not a neutral statement of fact, it assumes belief when belief may not exist or be rejected.

It more than assumes belief it is enforcing belief. Cis is not a neutral term, it is clearly stating that women are a sub set of their own sex class and that TW as the other sub set are women.

I am not a sub set of my own sex class, I am not cis and I will not be referred to as such.

That has always been your position, amirite?

Indeed.

Surely whatever the rules are for misgendering would be applicable here?

Whatever is considered harassment for misgendering would have to be equally applicable to the use of cis?

I don't think saying something offensive in and of itself should constitute harassment - that's much too low a bar. But you seem to be describing something more involved than that.

Ok given the context, I don't think it is harassment per se but there needs to be a better balance and using cis won't achieve this.

OP, the use of cis in and of itself won't constitute harassment. That would depend on the facts, as spelled out by Mr Justice Choudhury.

I'm not a lawyer, but there probably needs to be some test cases to work out exactly where the lines are.

You want to say people who use C*s in the workplace are harassing you?

Well, crack on with that ...

(No, I don't use that term ... Ever ... along with the T*rf nonsense either and I'm not sure that most people who do use those terms are aware of the Political Weight that kind of language carries)

Have you tried asking individuals not to use that word? Are lots of people using that word in your personal orbit? or are we talking hypothetically?

Just askin ... not judgin

If someone referred to me as a 'cis' woman rather than a woman and I asked them to stop using the unnecessary prefix, or labelled me as 'cis' when I don't accept that label, then to continue using it must be deliberate and therefore could be considered harassment, I should think?

In the same way as if someone referred to a TW as 'he' based on their perception and the TW asked them to use 'she' but they persisted with 'he', that could be considered harassment, could it not?

Even the original judge in the Maya Forstater employment tribunal said he wouldn't use the term because Maya found it offensive.