#CisIsNotASlur trending on Twitter

Demanding a yes/no answer is sometimes rather bullying, though. I had a bulk letter from the TV licence people years ago that asked, "Are you still watching TV without a licence?" and complained at the wording. Truthfully my answer was no, because I wasn't watching TV at all and didn't have it need one. The person I spoke to didn't get the problem until I framed it as, "How would you feel if I asked you, 'Are you still shoplifting?' "

In this case, I would have to say no, because I don't "identify" as a woman, I just am one. Likewise the prefix cis because no prefix is needed. If I prefixed woman with anything at all, it would only be to refine what I am by perhaps race, nationality, education, profession, disability, religion or age group, if any of those were relevant in the context. Vaccination status, even! But never cis.

[quote Millicispud]@Iveputmyselfonthenaughtystep

It's weird being the only sane person in the thread.

Feeling like Winston from 1984 here.[/quote]
Yet you give no explanation, no definition, no logic.

It's quite typical of both gender ideology and posters who think they are being clever.

Somehow I don't think you are either.

It’s typical of children pushing the buttons, isn’t it?

They know it’s a slur; they know many people reject it. They will keep pushing it just to be aggravating.

Thanks, Charlie - I couldn't find a citation pre-1994. I did a search after posting as I was so surprised to read it had been around for over 100 years!

I would like to add that the framing of compliance with sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes as healthy and beneficial for an individual should be seen in the context where that was most often discussed, which was male homosexual transsexuals, whose gender-non-conformity often led to social and familial censure. Because stereotypes are typically not as restrictive for males.

If you're female, sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes work against you much more markedly. So if you're gender-non-conforming you risk social or familial censure, but free yourself from stereotypes holding you back. And if you're gender-conforming, you're living within the confines of those stereotypes, which can be punishing on an individual level while but not on a social level.

That framing of cis as good and healthy then only works if you don't consider the effect stereotypes have on women.

Millicispud, please share citations for use of cis in gender context pre-1921. Should be straightforward if, as you claim, it's been used that way for over a century. Interested even to see any such usage pre-WWI, or pre-WWII for that matter. Thanks in advance.

Even if CIS wasn't a slur, I don't understand why I can't object to being labelled with a word I don't use for myself and have a personal objection to, without somebody coming along to insist that my feelings on it don't matter and that I am of that label, no matter what.

There is a massive cognitive dissonance there that they're either not seeing or are purposefully ignoring. I reckon the latter.

If somebody says they are GC I would expect them to question what the concept of identifying as a woman means.

OP back to your post and a) the BBC article about lesbians and e)shut up lesbians, I was moved by Kat Howard speaking about exactly this at the weekend. She was one of the lesbian victims interviewed for the BBC article. At university she was attacked by a TW when intoxicated. There were only 4 lesbians in her University LGBT group and 3 of them, including her, were singled out (not the larger number of Bi women). So... a university LGBT group where lesbians are being targeted precisely because they are lesbians.

but in these cases it's usually GC women who assume I am a trans woman and not men. Nobody "pushes me aside" and nobody is lying in my scenario. The question asker genuinely assumes I am trans and I am answering truthfully.

Why would somebody who is GC be asking whether you identify as a woman?

What @WanderingSoutherner said and as quoted by @Wildfart is the nub of the matter.

EITHER male and female humans are essentially the same, all fully human but some exist in male bodies and some exist in female bodies and that has some consequences for physiology, strength and hormones etc but not especially for personality, tastes or preferences. All further expectations are culturally evolved and defined and are fundamentally sexist.

OR male and female humans are fundamentally different on a spiritual level that is entirely separate from the direct consequences of having a male or female body. There are souls that are male, female and various other genders and which soul ends up in a specific body sometimes mismatches the shape of the body and the person experiences dysphoria because of that mismatch.

It's impossible for both of the above to be true. It is impossible to establish scientifically which is true, therefore it is a matter of faith. We each have the right to the faith of our choice and I have no objection to anyone believing the opposite view to me. I do object to public life and culture being railroaded into structures that reinforce and elevate any viewpoint that is a matter of faith like this. We live in a pluralistic society where we accept that we don't all have to believe the same in order to get along. We've been doing that quite well since we managed to stop burning eachother for being Catholics or Protestants a few hundred years ago. This mutual respect developed further (with acknowledged terrible failures at times) to be equally accepting of various other world religions.

Its quite right that different faith positions should be treated equally and that society respects the rights of individuals to deeply held beliefs that may not be in any way provable and may well be incompatible with the deeply held beliefs of the next person.

The current clashes are happening because people who believe in the first option above are being forced without consultation or consent to act at all times as if the second option is true and their own beliefs are unimportant. This is wrong.

I am not cis. I do not identify as a woman, I am a woman.

If you insist on using cis to describe me I will tell you that I am insulted, that you have misgendered me and that is a hate crime. You will have subjected me to literal violence. So don't.

Woman.
NOT cis.

Would you agree or disagree that your explanation that there are mental, cultural and personal (your words) ways to be female that makes a male a woman to be sexist?

A male adopting female mental (!), culture and personality is or isn't taking a sexist view on what being female is?

Milli hasn't come back?

You’re welcome @firsttimedad79 🙂

Or perhaps milli was just wrong or mistyped or something, or you are just using different definitions?

that was not the situation though: I am being asked "do you identify as a woman". I do. But so does a trans woman, so cis makes my answer unambiguous.

But if someone is asking you if you identify as a woman, they're not asking you about your sex. Why do you feel the need to state your sex in answer to that question?

I don't need to identify as a woman, because I am one.

I am being asked "do you identify as a woman". I do. But so does a trans woman, so cis makes my answer unambiguous.

But so what? How you identify is irrelevant to anyone asking isn't it? What you are is the important question.

I can't say anyone has ever asked me how I identify? Not sure how I'd answer tbh!

yeah but it is tho

[quote waterlego]@firsttimedad79

Some people believe ‘cis’ is needed to modify the words ‘woman’ or ‘man’. This is because they believe that there is more than one way to be a woman/man. So they believe that there are ‘cis women’ (who are female) and ‘trans women’ (who are male).

Most of us on this board don’t share that belief. Many of us are happy to use the word ‘transwoman’ to describe a male human who wishes he was female/sees himself as female. But we reject the term ‘cis’ to describe ourselves. We are women.[/quote]
Thank you for that!

Just wanted to know a bit more about what I was reading :)