I’m receiving an unpleasant battering on social media regarding the term “ cis women”. Can anyone point me at resources to help me defend my objection to this terminology?
Titerama · 22/04/2023 09:38
Has anyone seen cis used in a racial or disability context?
Nope, because that’s not a usage of it, and it’s also not what this thread is about.
People who are not offended by the use of cis in the context of a conversation about trans women should be free to say that in this feminist chat board without being harassed, attacked as pandering to men, doing down women and supporting male supremacy.
The reaction comments to some very mild pushback is way over the top.
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
MandyMotherOfBrian · 20/04/2023 18:39
Did anyone else’s Irony Klaxon just go off?
Titerama · 20/04/2023 18:19
@Fabulosia if you go into this with the attitude that any and every use of cis is oppressive, offensive, colonialism or pandering to male fantasy, you can be sure of coming off like an obsessive annoyance.
And unlike in the bubble of mn feminism boards, an unpleasant battering is likely.
I’m not interested in getting into a tussle about it, just a tiny reminder of how the real world works out there.
MargotBamborough · 22/04/2023 10:22
I do see that, which is why I haven’t said anyone is wrong to be offended by it. It’s literally in one of my comments - be offended by it if that works for you.
Would you say the same thing to a trans person who was offended about being referred to by their biological sex?
Because I can't help but see a real double standard here, in that when women (the old fashioned kind, with wombs, as Ricky Gervais would say) object to being called "cis", or "people with cervixes" or any of the many other expressions which trans activists are pushing to be used in common parlance instead of "women", we are told, "It's not offensive, it just means your gender identity aligns with your sex assigned at birth" or alternatively, "You can be offended by it if you like, that's up to you".
There is almost never any acknowledgement that the people about whom these terms are being used have the right to determine whether they are offensive or not, and certainly never any indication that the offenders will stop using these terms even after they have been told they are offensive.
By contrast, the whole of society is expected to essentially not use words which accurately describe people according to their biological sex, because it offends trans people.
How do you think it would go down if I said to a trans woman, "Calling you a man isn't offensive, it just means you're an adult human of the male biological sex, i.e. the opposite of a woman", or alternatively, "You can be offended by it if you like, that's up to you"?
Not well, I'm guessing.
Actually, I don't have to guess because I have said these things and they do not go down well.
Why is it that women should have to accept being described in a way which offends us and isn't even factually accurate, but that when trans people object to being described in a way which offends them but is in fact factually accurate, we are expected to modify our vocabulary and even limit the concepts we are allowed to discuss? (Because it appears there is no way of discussing the importance and immutability and binary nature of biological sex without offending trans people, whatever euphemisms you use.)
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.