Pulled up at work for ‘trans views’

@wherearethemarsbars

Just wondering if any more came of this for you at work?

I think you are setting an EXCELLENT example for junior colleagues!

That's geographical, rather than historical, use of cis and trans. Cis means east of or on this side of, trans means west of or on the other side of . In the example you gave that would be east and West of the alps. Julius caesar coined the term for the gauls on either side of the alps to him.

PP said they were terms related to gender. I just pointed out that they aren’t necessarily. In fact, hadn’t been until quite recently in terms
of their current use. The chemical
use has been for hundreds of years at least. I don’t know about the historical use.

They're not inherently linked, but when someone does link them, then they're linked.

(There's chemistry, and history too--when this foolishness began, I was thinking of "Cisalpine Gaul" and "Transalpine Gaul".)

Cis and trans are nothing more than a pair of Latin words which mean on the same side as, or on the opposite side to, as any A level chemistry student will tell you. They aren’t inherently linked to gender at all.

That would be an improvement on "cis" and would clarify "trans" I think!

Many years ago the BBC did an early reality TV show (late 1990's) called Paddington green which did feature a trans woman, Jackie. I remember her talking about how she liked playing with 'girls toys' like a kitchen set rather than what she considered to be masculine. Worked as a prostitute to pay for surgery and then she was discovered to be a very good pianist and did some recordings. She was a mess but managed to sort her life out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddington_Green_(TV_series) - (can watch on you tube)

And never was the word CIS mentioned one, nor were pronouns demanded of everyone. This is a new - part of a expectation that unless people label themselves they are not acknowledging their rights. It is very much a case of the new (self absorbed) generation which have been bought up on the internet, and social media, and expect recognition at every level.

I’ve always thought cis and trans were terms related to gender. As such, it prioritises gender as what makes a woman a woman and a man and a man. Replace it with sex and you would end up with female woman and a male woman.

Trans is a signifier that indicates a deviation from the norm. Thus the ‘norm’ does not need to be restated. We talk of ‘occluded windows’, because the norm is ‘transparent’ windows and the transparency is accepted/incorporated into cultural understanding of the meaning of ‘window’. Similarly we might refer to a 3-legged dog or horse, because w understand that quadrupeds have 4 legs - we don’t talk about 4 legged dogs or horses. We know how many legs they have normally.

So, we KNOW what a woman is - a biologically female human who has survived to adulthood. We don’t need to prefix ‘woman’ with terms like ‘cis’ or ‘biological’. And the SC ruling has underscored this fact.

I am a woman. Full stop.

Declaring oneself asexual isn’t a protected characteristic - I would avoid interactions if possible and use their names to describe them rather than use ‘they’.
Forcing you to adopt transgender terminology to describe yourself was wrong and I would suggest they update their training to acknowledge the law.

Yep, most people have a mix of masculine and feminine traits. And if everyone is non-binary, then there are no women, so therefore nobody left to suffer from misogyny or sexism or MVAW, & none of those people who historically would not have been allowed to vote. Hallelujah, we've fixed all women's problems, if only it were that easy to solve all the others, lol.

Yup

This

Have not read all thread so apologies if this has been said but couldn't you argue that assuming you are 'cis' is inappropriate. It is not inclusive to label someone as 'cis' when they don't know the first thing about them or what terminology they prefer.

I agree with whoever said - ask for it in writing and then respond in writing. I have decided I don't use the term woman (nevermind cis woman) anymore and will stick with female.

If you look up gender identity, gender etc on the websites that espouse such things you'll find definitions such as that by the World Health Organisation, Or the Australian Human Rights Commission, Or Stonewall:
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy".
"Gender Refers to the way in which a person identifies or expresses their masculine or feminine characteristics."
Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.
Gender identity - Refers to a person’s deeply held internal and individual feeling of gender.
Cisgender - Someone whose gender is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth.
Cisgender: denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered for them at birth.
What does this actually mean?
This means gender is the social stereotypes expected of one's sex.
And cisgender is a person whose internal sense of self aligns with the stereotypes expected of one's sex / whose roles and behaviours fit tose stereotypically associated with their sex.
It's really pretty sexist to call a woman that or expect her to define her identity based on the social stereotypes that cause us so much harm.

If we expected black or asian people to be defined publicly by how much they identify with the stereotypes society puts on them because of their race, it would be considered racist and objectionable. Or people with disabilities, or the elderly.

"Cisoleth" sounds like something out of Lovecraft.

If you like.

Along with 99% of the population.

Why must you put labels on everyone?

Hi OP, my worry is your reputation has been called into question and that is very serious.
You could consider going to next layer up- not the manager who attacked you, but their manager.
Ask for a meeting face to face and explain your concerns. In particular the reputational damage being done to you by accusing you - a senior nurse- of not being a good role model. There is no evidence to back this up and you want this to be retracted pronto. Write everything down as OP have suggested. You’ve done nothing wrong in answering a question about how you define yourself.

I haven't been in the least confrontational, or even openly GC. I'd like to be able to say I had. But anyone in my sector knows this would be career suicide.

I have little doubt that certain colleagues will have clocked my lack of pronouns, signatures and rainbow compliance-symbols. I've been probed on the issue, and am on the verge of asking a particular colleague to stop. But it does greatly sadden me. One of those open letters has been signed by a number of people I know, and they are people whom I like and respect. It's one of the most difficult, divisive issues I've ever had to navigate.

I am, however, clear about the degree to which I can be forced to 'signal' compliance and I have strong personal boundaries. Others don't get to redefine me against my will.

You are a massive hypocrite.

To me, if I was a transwoman, I’d find the word cis to describe women very transphobic. I men, if cis means on the side of… ie a woman, and trans means the other side of.. the other side of woman is man so by saying women are cis women, they are just confirming that TW are indeed men. Even the TRA language is transphobic.

The word "cisgender" was coined in English in 1994 in America by graduate student Dana Defosse, but the term was discussed much earlier, in German in 1914 in relation to sexology, where the habit of wearing "gender-conforming" clothing was described as "cisvestitismus" whereas cross-dressing was called "transvestitismus".

I find it interesting that academics studying gender and "gendered behaviour" decided to describe people's appearance, what they wore, in this way. Academia has a lot to answer for, but describing in technical terms how people "express their gender" through dress could so easily have been just an academic exercise, never affecting the lives of ordinary people. It might have been a minor ripple in social history instead of the huge shouting-match it's turned into.

Thing is, what a person chooses to wear doesn't really affect others. It's a person's behaviour that has an impact, not their clothes. So if people want to wear clothes that make a statement, clothes that represent their concept of themselves, fine. Women can wear trousers or whatever, men can wear skirts or kilts or dresses. It doesn't matter. It's dressing up.

It is a giant step from wearing clothes a person likes wearing, to them insisting that wearing those clothes gives that person a new identity, a different "gender". Then, insisting that other people respect and acknowledge the new identity. Insisting that other people must see them as being the new "gender". Saying that people are disgusting bigots if they question this ideology in any way. And going further, insisting that everyone use the terminology invented by the "new gender" ideologues, and use the terminology to define their own "gender", their own identity. Or else. If other people fail to use the ideological terms, they must be punished, shunned, shamed.

No. This weird fantasy is ending. I'm one of the other people, and I don't agree to be defined by those terms. I don't want or need a "gender identity". I am not "cis", nor am I "trans". (It's just a fact of life.)

Sorry for my tone… should have realised and dialled it down.