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

The majority of people have no idea what "cis" refers to (aside from chemists familiar with stereo-isomerism) - use of the word unknown to most makes for unclear documentation, which tends to be considered bad practice.

What's the point in asking you to review if it's too late to make changes?

What a waste of your time if that's the case.

Just want to add my voice here that I agree with what everybody above says. At best, "cis" only makes sense in the context of having a gender identity. At worst, it assumes a level of acceptance of sexist stereotypes, and that's definitely offensive.

Also, @WhereYouLeftIt, thanks for that link, this is a really interesting site.

Is the term “cis man” a thing?
Never seen it used?

I'm wondering a bit about the rest of the document, OP.

Does it mention elsewhere, perhaps, that if only one sex is involved (say, in maternity or menopause policies) that the words 'woman' and 'mother' etc are totally correct and appropriate?

I they are suggesting 'cis' I'd doubt that this was the only issue with the doc??

Thanks PerkingFaintly - appreciate that!

Thank you, LonginesPrime: you've articulated beautifully and clearly what I've just been thrashing around trying to word.

It sounds bloody teenage also.

Hey bro, hey cis.

Like text/Twitter speak has taken over. That doesn’t look professional.

Most people don't know what CIS means nor understand its logic/derivation once they are told. It is the preferred language of Gender Ideology and therefore definitely not inclusive. I am not a 'cis woman', I am a woman or at a pinch a natal woman.

Glad you got such good advice OP.

I think this is a pretty decent article, written by a transwoman who says in this essay that they won't ever use the word 'cis' and why.

genderapostates.com/cissexism-and-you/

It is currently unclear whether "cis" means someone who is not transgender or whether it means someone who actively identifies as having a gender identity that may be perceived by some as "matching" their sex [which itself presupposes that internal gender identity has some overlap with physical sex, which is debateable and potentially offensive...]

I would be saying that 'cis' doesn't work if we're trying to be inclusive, because it assumes the gender identity of others and presupposes that all people who haven't actively and loudly asserted that they are trans are by definition happy with the gender that society has assumed they have based on their sex.

Using the word 'cis' also puts pressure on people to out themselves and declare their gender (or lack thereof) when they would otherwise have preferred not to make such decision or declaration, because using 'cis' to describe everyone who hasn't actively come out as trans assumes that all of the people who are silent about their own gender are a homogeneous group and that they all experience gender in a similar way. Which is simply not how gender works, according to the trans organisations seeking to educate us on gender. Therefore, by using the descriptor 'cis', a person risks misgendering a large number of people in the group they're referring to.

'Cis' as a gender descriptor is frequently used to label others, and is often used in a pejorative sense to call out privilege and silence others. In an inclusive world where a person's gender identity (as experienced by them) should not be assumed, the term 'cis' as a descriptor is not only not inclusive, but likely to be divisive and inflammatory.

'Cis' is also discriminatory on the basis of sex, as it presupposes that men and women who have not declared themselves as trans (for whatever reason) are by definition comfortable having the gender stereotypes associated with their sex being placed on them. Gender stereotypes harm everyone, so the notion that anyone who has not claimed a gender identity is therefore happy with the gender stereotypes associated with their sex is deeply offensive and sexist.

You can always gather that information to have anyway, but I much prefer keeping things calm and not having a fight when necessary - going round not through. I'd have it in my back pocket though.

To me Cis reduces women to a subset of being a woman. That clearly cannot be true because being a woman is the requirement for being classed as a woman.

The latter would be if either just deleting wouldn't work (e.g. not the done thing, in my org you'd do that with tracked changes on) , or if It had a section about how it was inclusive.

What if you went low key? If I was reviewing a document like this I'd either:

1. Delete without comment if e.g. one item in a list.
2. Delete with fairly mild comment e.g. "would not recommend this, controversial term which some groups find inclusive and others offensive - suggest excluding for ease - if you wish to keep this in let me know and we can discuss"

Obviously you could go in with articles etc, but that sort of suggests that deleting it Is a big deal, whereas the above minimise its significance, which is always my preference where there are controversial issues. I wouldn't want to end up having a full discussion about GC beliefs at work just because perceptions can be so difficult to manage.