Help me explain to the hard of thinking why the word 'cis' should not be in our public facing document

The thing is with this approach you risk them replying that cis is just a word for anyone who isn't trans. If you start saying things like "subset of our own sex" you risk losing people or being labelled a Karen.

I think I'd stick to, "Lots of people don't know what this word means, and some of the people who do know what it means find it offensive. I think we should avoid using such politically loaded terminology, especially in the current climate, and stick to clear and factual language. We are talking about women, and a small number of female people who identify as trans men or non binary."

If it is an official document it should reflect the law.

The law doesn't talk about cisgender or cis women. This is an ideological term which should not replace sex.

This is about specific actual individual women, right?

How do the report writers know they are ‘cis’? Have they been asked? Can the report writers see gender? Do they assume that all women who don’t (bang on about) identify as trans are cis?

Because it carries an implication that women who don't declare themselves as nonbinary or transmen are therefore choosing to opt in to their own oppression.

Because it is not the case that anyone "not trans" is cis any more than you can say that anyone "not jewish" is Christian. Some people just don't believe in the concept of gender identity at all and that belief is legally protected as valid as has been established in a court of law.

Because if you accept that everyone gets to define their own gender identity it is fucking offensive to assume a default gender identity of cis for anyone who doesn't actively claim something else.

The only people who should be called cis are those who choose that label. Most people simply do not do so.

What @AnnaMagnani said.

I'd just stick to the basics - ask if they have any evidence that the majority of your target market understand what it means. Given that we get quite a lot of posts asking 'what's cis' on here I'd be amazed if they do.

Then I'd ask if they mean to exclude people who are female but trans.

The trans man and NBs are an important point. If they intend to encompass all biological women, or even all biological women and TW, then 'cis' doesn't work because it excludes the TM and female NBs.

'Women' is actually much safer, if they want - as they should - to avoid inadvertent exclusion of anyone biologically female.

As per many posters, "women" are just that, "women". We are not a subset of our own sex.

As a business decision (if it's a business you're involved in, rather than a public service), using "cis" will alienate numerous potential customers who find it offensive to be called "cis" and won't buy your products. If it's a public service, and you use "cis", expect lots of complaints.

I think I would focus on comprehensibility and accessibility.

1. Who is being discussed?
2. Who is the document aimed at?

I would suggest that the document should say something like, "This group consists primarily of women, as well as trans and non binary people who were registered female at birth".

😂😂🤷‍♀️

Spot the inconsistency:

1. “I don’t believe TWAW”
2. ”When people decide who they are, nobody is allowed to disagree”

1. ”ok, I’m not a cis woman, I’m a woman”
2. “ we’ll decide how to label you, you don’t get a say”

Cis relates to gender identity. Gender identity is about self ID. Unless every single human data point in your report has been asked what their gender identity is (and bearing in mind many will be agender / don't believe in gender identity / find cis offensive) then to label them as cis without their consent is transphobic.

Very exclusionary, tsk tsk.

I doubt they have the self ID gender id of all the people in their data, which means they're assigning a gender identity based on what? Sex, outdated stereotypes, whether or not the person wears a skirt, age? Obviously don't know what your report is about - understandably - but imposing a label on people that haven't consented is unlikely to endear them to anyone.

And this has already been explained I see!

It makes an assumption about somebody’s feelings about their identity, and that is wrong.

It’s a bit like asking somebody whether they are Protestant or Catholic without allowing for them either not having a faith or being Muslim.

It's Controversial!

Author JK Rowling, who made headlines after commenting on topics relating to the transgender community, tweeted: “‘Cis’ is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.”

Also have just discovered a new linguistic term.

The term (t**f) is actually an exonym – a term used to describe a third party that the third party neither recognises, nor uses itself.

I don't think you can claim cis is a slur but it's a close cousin.

Yes.

So many great replies on this thread!

I haven’t read all the messages so apologies if this has already been said, but here is an analogy I find useful.

Saying that someone must be “cis” if they aren’t “trans” is like saying that someone must be Catholic if they aren’t Protestant.

Good luck OP, some good advice here as ever.

Among some of my friends, cis is used as a way of strategically identifying yourself as an ally and prostrating yourself as being part of a majority who needs to defer to marginalised communities. That's why it often gets bundled in with being straight, as in 'cishet' (an ugly, meaning-free word that's a mix of Latin and Greek!).

So I find it both offensive and tedious and I disengage from anything that uses it.

As someone put it very well upthread (I may be paraphrasing a bit): Why should women be forced to adopt a different label for ourselves just because transwomen feel uncomfortable with who they are?

The whole principle of 'cis' rests on the idea that gender identity, i.e. an innate inner feeling of gender, is a real thing that everyone has. But there is not a shred of proof of that being the case.

Yes, unfortunately.

Is it purely an internal use, or would it involve clients / customers? If the latter, I'd be tempted to sidestep the whole issue and say that it is a niche term that would hamper clarity and communication with target audiences.

If pushed, you can use the example of the census to show that when it is used it is widely misunderstood.

Link to the plain English site

It’s inaccessible language

Because it excludes males and females that do not identify as "cis".

Its a label being forced on people by people that get shirty if you mis-label them.

It is a non-sense term that does not relate to to how it is being used.

It centers 0.1% (less) of the population as the meaning has been changed to "not trans"

It stands a good chance of actually turning away business given the current climate.