Would you help me with an "inclusive language" doc for work?

I have suggested a compromise where they note (as they have done with the word "queer" earlier in the guidance) that whilst some people are identify as or are happy to be referred to as "cis" it should be used with caution when describing others as some people (particularly feminists or those with gender critical views) find it exclusive and / or offensive.

I suspect the problem you've run into is the fact that most corporate HR depts still accept Stonewall's advice as the gold standard for inclusion (and many are under a great deal of pressure to get a good Workplace Equality Index ranking). If they're involved with Stonewall, these inclusive guidance documents will be submitted to Stonewall for judgement as to how well they are following Stonewall's guidance.

Stonewall says that gender critical beliefs are akin to antisemitism, so any mention of gender critical beliefs is going to set hares running for any organisation with links to Stonewall. Which is most organisations nowadays.

They will either be reluctant to consider a GC perspective because people believe Stonewall when they say that GC beliefs are bigoted, or reluctant simply because they realise that not using the Stonewall-mandated terminology of 'cis' means they will be marked down in the Stonewall index and the people within the organisation who want to be seen to be more inclusive (through Stonewall rankings or otherwise) will be annoyed with them.

If the person responsible for the document makes that change to delete 'cis', they will eventually have to explain their reasoning. It doesn't sound like they understand it well enough themselves to be confident in explaining it, so they're understandable scared to make the change.

They may well have googled the term to get clarification on why this term that they thought was standard inclusive language could actually be seen as offensive, and may have stumbled on all sorts of misinformation online as there are plenty of really strong options out there. I can see why someone who has been told 'if in doubt, follow Stonewall's advice on inclusion', might be worried about deviating in a way that is criticised as bigoted by many people online.

Also, given that the person responsible for the document isn't really aware of the controversy and is probably only just realising they've stumbled into a wasp's nest, I doubt they feel confident in changing the wording in a way that they could confidently say won't offend anyone - they most probably realise they're out of their depth now, and what do people do when they feel out of their depth? They consult the experts. And who are the established 'experts' on inclusion? Stonewall, of course!

My advice would be to offer to re-work the sentence(s) for them, to make it as easy as possible to accept your suggestions. They need support if they're going to find a way to be truly inclusive, as they clearly don't appreciate the problem (or the misogyny).

I also think it's important to flag to them that presumably the document should be inclusive to everyone and not just trans people, otherwise that's not inclusion at all.

Listening to trans people is obviously necessary and commendable, but trans people only speak for themselves and not for all the people who haven't or don't identify as trans for whatever reason.

Personally, I'd steer clear of championing feminist/gender critical viewpoints by name, for the reasons mentioned above. I would instead focus on the fact it is misogynistic language and that Stonewall represent (some) LGBT+ people, but have never claimed to speak for women as a group. I would also point out that even other LGB organisations reject the term 'cis', so it's not even an established norm within the LGBT+ community as times are changing and this is outdated.

Furthermore, since the word 'cis' is recognised as controversial by many and is the subject of much debate (as evidenced by a quick goodie search) whereas there are plenty of other words that aren't controversial, why choose the controversial word for inclusion guidance which is specifically designed not only not to offend, but to support other people in not inadvertently offending with their language choices too. It undermines the whole purpose of the document.

I'd also point out that directing employees to throw the term 'cis' around at each other risks exposing your employer to liability for discrimination claims if employees do object to being labelled as 'cis' by other employees, as they will point to the fact the employer directed them to use this discriminatory language. You've warned them it's an offensive term, so if they choose not to heed your warning, it's that drafter's fault if the employer gets sued. Given that they are obviously trying to be more inclusive, a discrimination claim isn't going to look great.

I might also ask the company if there were any other situations where they have assigned a personal belief to people without their consent or even consultation. I'm going to make a wild guess that the answer would be 'of course not'.

I would just say "because its use is controversial and many women find it incomprehensible or offensive" and not try to mention what political views those women might have.

Nobody is obliged to ask or listen to someone's vague, ill-thought through bullshit theory of mind.

I am not obliged to ask or listen to someone describing why they think everyone should be described as either Klingon or Xarj3fizz (otherwise known as 'non-Klingon'). They may indeed find this a very important part of their identity; I consider it bullshit I just don't need to know. And yes, I'd find it offensive to be compelled to call myself either Xarj3fizz or 'non-Klingon'.

Sorry, OP, I've only now seen your updates.

"things are only offensive if we don't ask and don't listen"

What illogical bullshit. 'things' are offensive if someone finds them so. Lots of people find 'cis' offensive, therefore it is offensive.

Sounds like this person is somewhat hard of thinking.

A general guide should be clear and easy to understand.

For clarity and real inclusion (of various groups of people) I would avoid esoteric, contentious and hard to understand/explain terms.

@catgirl1976 I have done this at work. My argument was that many colleagues would find 'cis' offensive and that it was unnecessarily divisive.

It's fine to refer to people according to their preferred way but not to enforce unwelcome labels.

That argument was accepted.

Hats off to LonginesPrime, who nails it again.

And there are many people not versed in the terminology who think exactly that, that a "trans woman" is a biological female who identifies as a man. It is confusing. It isn't clear.

It's not unclear at all. Cis means someone who is not trans. That's it.

No it doesn't, because I don't subscribe to your belief system. If you simply want it to mean "not trans", then it will only work if a "trans man" means an MTF trans person, and a "trans woman" is an FTM trans person. Otherwise, no.

It's not unclear at all. Cis means someone who is not trans. That's it.

'Cis' is short for cisgender. The very definition depends on a belief in gender identity for its construction. Therefore, it describes nothing without acceptance of gender ideology.

And the word 'cis' means 'on this side', relative to 'trans' meaning 'across' or, in this context, 'on the other side' (i.e. one's gender is 'on this side' or the 'opposite' side of biological sex).

So yes, if you use 'cis' in the context of 'trans' or 'not trans', I can see why you would see it as simply meaning 'not trans', but if you do this, you would be ignoring the fact that not everyone is either 'cis' or 'trans' - there is a large number of people in the world who reject this understanding of gender identity because it doesn't accord with their lived experience of gender and who therefore aren't caught by either 'trans' or 'cis'.

So it isn't inclusive to use 'cis' to mean 'not trans' as lots of people are excluded and marginalised by this definition.

Many people experience gender in a way that is not adequately described by 'cis' or 'trans' and it harms them to push a narrative onto them that ignores their lived experiences and describes them in relation to what people outside of their group assume they experience, purely on the basis that they think that's what it looks like from the outside.

The impression I get of people who use the term 'cis' is that they've listened to some people who don't identify as trans (for all sorts of reasons) but have mistakenly assumed that those people experience gender in exactly the same way as all other people who appear to be the same as them. I view people who use the term 'cis' as bigoted and hypocritical, because their use of the term requires an assumption of other people's gender identities while at the same time preaching that everyone should be free to dictate their own gender identity according to their personal lived experience and that misgendering other people is offensive and disrespectful.

It's like the when a toddler first learns the word 'cat' and then mistakenly understands everything else to be 'not cat', until they have more life experience and have learned enough about the world to understand that actually, this is a dog, and this is a bird, and this is a capybara. And they keep learning all these new animals throughout their life as their worldview expands. Vets manage to write articles about cats without referring to dogs and birds as 'non-cats' throughout, so I find the claim that intelligent adults can't adequately describe the trans experience without referring to everyone else by defining them as 'non-trans' as utterly bizarre.

Cis wouldn't be needed at all if we could stick to sex based words. I'm a woman. My friend C, a woman who has transitioned to live as a man, is a trans woman. Elliot Page is a trans woman. Caitlin Jenner is a trans man. Graham Norton is a man. If only people wanted to use language clearly to communicate reality.

It's not unclear at all. Cis means someone who is not trans. That's it.

BlueberryCheezecake

It's unclear, because other people have said the other definition. What/who is the definitive source for this definition?

Ah sorry op, I missed your latest updates.

I think I would say that the word 'cis' implies a belief in a gender identity, and that like, other personal beliefs, it is a label that some people may choose for themselves but that it is deeply inappropriate to apply it to anyone without their consent.

www.plainenglish.co.uk

I think that using plain English is one of the most important inclusive language principles. Most of the population have a reading age of 12 (or something) - it’s not inclusive to include complicated language.

OP, if you suggest the removal of the word, you'd probably better be prepared to offer an alternative and equally clear and simple way to refer to people who aren't trans.

RE not enough time... find all, replace with nothing. 5 second job, done. It's a non-argument

I work in FE. I would be a bit more blunt. It is offensive to many women (and men), it is unclear what it means; and once it is explained, it is still offensive. The demographics of FE students are often the less educated or literate, and also many students with EAL (depending on location). Many mature students. This is not plain, easily, commonly understood English, and is unnecessary. 'Non-transgender' is just ridiculous. This has to be pushed back against. We have the law and the EHRC on our side now.

And re offensive, with regards to inclusive language, are all the slurs considered unmentionable just offensive because people don’t listen to them? That sound bite has no logic and in itself isn’t inclusive of many peoples experience of prejudice, discrimination or oppression. Ask if they’d tell poc that they are only offended by racial slurs because they aren’t listening?

Isn’t non transgender the equivalent of a double negative? Trans is a signifier that the person isn’t the gender typically associated with their sex, so it’s already a ‘negative’ prefix, so non and trans would just cancel each other out and it would become gender. Which in terms of how it’s meant to be used in this type of documentation means woman or man.

"things are only offensive if we don't ask and don't listen"

Weird message, they have asked, you said it was offensive, they refuse to change it,

Glad I don't have to do your job OP.