Really stupid question about the term 'cis'

I suppose a quick and simplistic answer would be to say that you don't agree with the word "women" being redefined to include men.

Not all Gender Critical people don't believe in gender, some agree that it is an existing social concept, but downplay its importance relative to sex.

I think you're making an alternative when they're actually simultaneous - not believing in queer theory's gender identity (innate feeling), but recognising gender in the feminists' sense of societal sex-based expectations/roles, and downplaying/critical of that.

A trans gc person may recognise that society expectations may have triggered dysmorphia ( sp?) but also know that despite that, they feel the way they do

They understand the difference between the society and personal level , a common feature in feminist thinking

4. That it incorrectly implies everyone has a gender identity. This argument can go two ways: either that people don't have a perception of their own identity or that gender doesn't exist as a social construct. Generally these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of what identity, gender & social constructs are.

Picking up on this one, it's more than just implying everyone has a gender identity, it's implying that a woman who is female and not trans is automatically a cis woman. And as such they not only have a gender identity, but they are comfortable with this gender identity and it is an identity that matches their birth sex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

So, I both understand the social construction of gender, understand that I have grown up in a gendered society and as such have had a gender identity of woman imposed upon me. But I am a woman who is very uncomfortable with the gendered expectations and as such am categorically not a cis woman.

It's not about period products and things that are physically linked to the sex of the body.

It's about the rights , opportunities and protections that female people should have because of systemic sexism linked to the sex of the body.

Historically these have been labelled "women's" - eg women's rights, women-only spaces, women-only opportunities - because women was a single sex group.

But if you make "Women" a mixed sex group by changing the meaning of the woman to include males without also redefining those pre-existing female-only things as "female sex" , you make them unfit for purpose.

So it's not about whether people know who needs period products. That is just a trivial and simplistic meme thrown about by TRAs to obscure the real issue.

It's about whether female people, who suffered millennia of brutal, legal sexism and now continue to suffer its social after-effects, should continue to exist as a social and political group with their own needs, rights and protections.

One would only consider that a "proxy battle for opposing trans people" if they believed that trans rights, safety and provisions cannot coexist with female-only rights, safety and provisions, and to give trans people what they need must undeniably remove from female people what they need.

But as long as one understands that female-only spaces, rights, protections and indeed a name for the female half of the species can continue to exist alongside trans-appropriate spaces, rights and protections without in any way diminishing trans people's rights and safety, why would there be a battle?

A trans GC person is someone who holds GC beliefs and is trans. 'Non GC trans people' would simply be everyone else who is trans but have different beliefs.

So instead of saying women and men we now need to say women snd transmen , men and transwomen every time sex matters

And then some trans people get very angry that they are bring considered alongside others of their sex

Well using cis doesn't prevent discussion of sex categories, so that argument appears to be a proxy battle for opposing trans people.

Well, it's a proxy battle for opposing the concept "trans women (ie men) are women".

The word "women" is taken. Women need it to talk about their issues without having to use stupid phrases like "people in the female sex category".

1. That it's not a word you're comfortable with. Of course, that raises the question of why. But putting that aside for a moment, it is reasonable to ask people not to refer to you with words you're not ok with. The logical consequences of this argument are that a) you need another way of saying explicitly when someone isn't trans (which could just be 'not trans'), and b) you also need to accept that some women are fine with being called cis.

I don't see anyone here saying anything other than that they find the word offensive. No one is requiring that everyone else adhere to their personal choice of labels (other than those who insist women must accept the word cis.) Basic principle: everyone's free to identify themselves based on their own sincerely held beliefs and won't attempt to label others against their will. All good.

2. That 'cis' is unnecessary because women are 'not trans' by default. This is a weaker argument. We often need language to make things clearer; language doesn't develop on the basis of using the minimum possible words, it's for maximising communication. The idea that there is such a thing as a default person is also a hard one to argue in a multicultural society.

Women and TW/NB/TM. The words are there. Insisting on 'cis' is motivated by other reasons than clarity and meaning; and again as you point out, not all women would choose to identify as 'cis'. So we're into 'cis' woman and TW and NB and .... wtf do we call all those people over there because we've ditched the word 'female' and 'woman' that did the job perfectly well until five minutes ago.

3. It's like calling an atheist a heathen. This isn't a good comparison, because atheists aren't proposing that 'human' should mean non-believing-in-god. They're fine being called 'atheist', and they're fine accepting that religion exists even if they don't subscribe to it. If someone wants to propose a word that means 'person who doesn't believe in gender' (which is similar to what Gender Critical means), that's valid but doesn't have the same meaning as cis, especially when there are GC trans people.

This again pre supposes that there is only one correct belief, which is in gender ideology, and those not subscribing to it must find other ways to describe their intransigency. Instead of respecting that many people just don't believe this way of regarding the world and continue to believe in fixed biological sex and to define themselves accordingly.

4. That it incorrectly implies everyone has a gender identity. This argument can go two ways: either that people don't have a perception of their own identity or that gender doesn't exist as a social construct. Generally these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of what identity, gender & social constructs are.

This basically suggests everyone does have a gender identity, just that some remain in denial about it. Again, rejection of accepting that there are many who just don't see the world in this way, don't wish to define themselves in obedience to a political ideology or participate in it, and this is ok , it's possible to live and let live.

5. Cis makes women a subset in their own category. The main problem with this argument is that it misuses 'subset' as it applies to set theory (things cannot be sets, they are contained within sets), and the argument is incomplete because it doesn't describe what harm is supposed from being in a subset. VIPs are a subset of concertgoers, sprinters are a subset of athletes, cars are a subset of vehicles - no harm is being done to people within these sets by describing them as such. Considering the set of women, trans women and cis women are subsets, but so are old women, blonde women, tall women etc.

Thing is, all of those sets are female. The implication is that 'women' is a mix of sexed people in different sets. To those who believe that women is simply the half of the human race who are biologically female, this seems merely a linguistic way to crowbar male people in to their words and spaces. Which advantages male people but disadvantages female people and is good old fashioned sexism.

If someone wants to propose a word that means 'person who doesn't believe in gender' (which is similar to what Gender Critical means), that's valid but doesn't have the same meaning as cis, especially when there are GC trans people
I don't understand this. Could you explain?How is not believing in gender anything but Gender Critical? I've seen the term GC trans people before. What do they believe? How are they different to non GC trans people?

"But there's also the argument that man/woman are sex based categories, and that allowing the term "cis" denies this. Could you please comment on that?"

Well using cis doesn't prevent discussion of sex categories, so that argument appears to be a proxy battle for opposing trans people.

Say you're discussing lack of access to period products; there are several ways we could describe who's affected: we could say it affects many women, or if you want to talk about sex categories then you could say it affects many people in the female sex category. Whether we use the term cis doesn't make a difference.

Considering the set woman to contain transwomen and females is like saying considering the set animals to contain carrots

Given for millennia people have understand terms man and woman on biological grounds, it's up to them to come up with a new definition

As best I understand, they think women are "men who say they are women and females who are told they are women "

I agree - ‘cis’ is the opposite of progressive because it:

• is built on sexist rigid definitions of how a person ‘should’ be
• is men telling women they have to have a new name, because they said so

Even so, I had a lovely friend of mine who works in a school say that she thought ‘cis’ was very progressive. I had no words!

Because it's fucking bollocks.

Also, it's built on sexist roles

Necessaryscene

It's a false binary - you reject the cis/trans binary.

This puts it so clearly. I acknowledge my sex is female, I don't adjust my behaviour to be seen as more or less womanly/manly.

Considering the set of women, trans women and cis women are subsets, but so are old women, blonde women, tall women etc.

Old women, blonde women, tall women are all equally women, unlike transwomen but well done for not incuding black women in this illogical argument, as is usual.

In my mind I shouldn't have to give up the right to use the plain and simple word 'woman' without a prefix just to appease men

I think you have articulated it very well. That is exactly how I feel. I didn’t change my surname for a man. I won’t respond or call myself a ‘cis woman’ because I don’t want to be dictated to, especially ironic as it’s apparently men who want me called a different name.

For me the ‘cis’ is one of the first red flags for me with much of the new trans aggressive agenda. Up until I had a workplace insist that I was referred to as ‘cis’ I had largely supported the movement. This was the point I thought… hold on why are you calling me something different but wanting to ‘own’ the word ‘woman’ instead?!

Did I wake up in a strange parallel universe?!!!

I have never figured out what is wrong with simply sticking to Women and Trans Women?

To me cis always feels like another way of saying "real"
That seems offensive to both in my opinion.

I do believe that TWAW but my definition of Trans is probably not very PC

It's just a piece of POMO bollocks that seeks to acquire spurious credibility by misappropriating a piece of scientific jargon.

Not entirely unlike racism.

@MsBlue

Thanks for that post. Interesting. But there's also the argument that man/woman are sex based categories, and that allowing the term "cis" denies this. Could you please comment on that?

And surelt your #4 goes three ways, not two. The third way is that the concept of gender identity is so ill defined that it is not possible to identify it in any meaningful way.

I understand that some people use it without intending to be offensive - I accept that.

Cis exists to try to establish a world that nobody can claim their sex is a fact about them that is unmodified by their gender identity.

If 'trans woman' were used to mean a woman who is trans, cis wouldn't be needed. Steohen Whittle would be a trans woman, I would be a woman. Christine Burns would be a trans man, Boris Johnson would be a man. No problem.

The political decision to name men as women and women as men is why cis exists. I don't agree with that political decision.

Considering the set of women, trans women and cis women are subsets, but so are old women, blonde women, tall women etc.

Way to miss the point. Subsets can only include things that are in the same set. Accepting the concept of trans and cis is accepting that the set of Woman includes male people.

Of course depending on how you define the set of Woman that might be true.

BUT

All the definitions of woman that can include trans women mean changing the definition of woman from the one used to understand and fight against society's endemic sexism, anyone who has truly thought about the impact of redefining the set of women to include males without a parallel redefinition of woman-only provisions, rights and protections to be female-only will reject the label cis as an act of oppression and disempowerment against females.