Cis

[Fabulosia]

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?

Women are not a subset of their own sex, "woman" doesn't need a prefix or descriptor. I prefer "natal woman" or "real woman".

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.

I do prefer the term natal women for clarity - it’s more easily and widely understood.

Using cis excludes women who are female but don't identify as a woman

those of us who have found a way to live with our bodies and the society expectations without needing to damage our body

Us women of past generations who would be expected /considered today to be transmen today because we are a bit odd , like boys things ( absurd) and have a physical self loathing

By saying cis you exclude every one of those

You also suggest to me that you would rather people like me were sterilised ( transitioned) as soon as possible - so that's kind of an unpleasant feeling - no one who have ever "encouraged " groups of young people towards sterilisation has even been a good person

I prefer the term 'woman'. I find that is easily and widely understood.

*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. *

We have certainly seen 'trans-black' and 'trans-racial'. The only reason there is no usage of 'cis-black' or 'cis-racial' is that trans inthe context of race is so deeply offensive that, quite rightly, nobody tolerates applying cis to that context.

There are people who identify as disabled, without actually having any condition recognised as a disability. Again, so offensive that 'cis' terminology is not even given the tiniest consideration.

This is totally relevant to this thread. Blackface, raceface and disabilityface are deeply offensive to the people being imitated, colonised and erased. Womanface is equally deeply offensive to women being imitated, colonised and erased, as well as to many men who recognise that this is happening.

So two people on the thread that think the term "cis" communicates something don't think it's worthwhile clarifying what they mean.

This is why people become frustrated with it. Good-faith questions as to "do you mean x or y?" are ignored, and one set of people remain in the dark about what they would be understood to be saying if they used the term, and the other set think they are bad people for not knowing.

I have seen this play out for years.

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

Don't you see that "I don't personally find it offensive and am comfortable using it of myself" is different from "it is not offensive and you are wrong" - of course you can embrace the word in your own self-definition. You don't get to use the word of other people who haven't explicitly accept it of themselves. And it surely useful information to know that some people understand the word as per @nilsmousehammer's definition - any word that can be interpreted in more than one way should have all possible meanings of the word well-understood by all who use them so that they can clarify which meaning they intend.

@midgemadgemodge Yours is an interesting point. Being a woman is just that - being born as a female human. It doesn't mean you have to be or like or do anything in particular, or that you have to look a particular way. I think part of all this nonsense has arisen because of social media - women are "supposed" to be and look a certain Barbie-type way. So young women who don't feel that they have anything in common with these women then start to wonder if they really are women. "I don't want to have long hair and make-up and fake eyelashes and 'brows' mean nothing to me, and I don't want a huge bum and a tiny waist, and I just want to wear baggy t shirts and jeans - therefore I must really want to be a boy". When in fact they are being completely normal women.

This whole 'identifying as' business is bollocks, too. If you are a woman - or a man - you don't need to identify as anything. It's just what you are. If you want to look androgynous, then do it.

Nobody was going on about this sort of stuff in the 80s when the likes of Boy George and Annie Lennox were cross-dressing. Nick Rhodes and David Sylvian wore more make up on one day than I've ever done in my lfe. They all managed to do it and enjoy it without wanging on about their identities. But in the 80s, girls and boys could look and dress how the hell they liked and were allowed to just get on with it.

@CoozudBoyuPuak
”Don't you see that "I don't personally find it offensive and am comfortable using it of myself" is different from "it is not offensive and you are wrong" - of course you can embrace the word in your own self-definition.”

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.

Nor am I in charge of defining or setting the usage. Use a dictionary, google it, looks for places where it’s used to help you understand the meaning if you’re struggling to pin it down.

in any case, I’m sure the OP has plenty of great stuff to argue with in social media now to defend their objection, because lots of comments here agree with them. Have at it.

Calling people you’re trying to persuade of your rational argument pandering males supremacist activists who support sterilisation isn’t likely to get you far though. Just saying.

Don't you see that "I don't personally find it offensive and am comfortable using it of myself" is different from "it is not offensive and you are wrong" - of course you can embrace the word in your own self-definition. You don't get to use the word of other people who haven't explicitly accept it of themselves.

Imagine applying that "it's not offensive" rationale to the N, P or Y words (black people, Asian people, Jewish people).

But, hey, it's language. Those words have been around for centuries. Everyone uses them. Everyone understands them. Get over yourself, Karen.

<just to be clear - that was sarcastic cynicism >

You're entirely welcome to identify however you like. If you identify as 'cis' then good for you. The same goes for any of the many gender ideology labels.

It's being aware that other women find it quite stunningly offensive for many reasons, do not choose to identify that way, and not trying to force your beliefs, labels and values on them. In about the same way that trying to tell others that they should be fine praying with you and being called sinners may not be something others welcome from you.

And it does mean that you believe that it is more important to validate male people's right to be women if they want to than to consider the impact on the female sex. It is a word there to intentionally create a reality where men can be a kind of women.

I’d just say I don’t believe in gender ideology, I don’t have a sense of gender separate from my body. I have a sex (female) and everything else is my personality. I can’t be cis because cis implies I do have a gender that is separate from my biological sex and that those two things align. Plus wtf is a woman anyway, if you can’t define the gender “woman” then how can I know whether my gender is aligned or not.

I really don't like the term 'cis' in all honesty.

I will continue to use the term female - which I'm very proud of.

If someone calls me 'cis' or it somehow becomes an issue I'll politely let them know I disagree. So far had no real issues with it.

I think the more we ignore it and dismiss the ideology the faster it'll fizzle out. (I hope)🤞

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.)

Sorry, forgot to tag @Titerama .

Helen Joyce is great on this: cis/ trans inverts the man/ woman power axis to make it appear that women are now the ones with all the power and privilege.

I would happy call a transwoman a transwoman rather than a man because that's not a problem - we all know transwomen are men who feel their sense of gender is important to them

What I am not happy is the suggestion that transwomen are women because that's a lie

I don't need a gender - calling me cis is giving me a gender

They have a gender and I'll respect that ( in the first instance )

Yep.

Cis is offensive.

Well said.

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"

Well I was banned from (pre-Musk) Twitter for saying pretty much exactly this, almost in the exact same words/tone and without using any insults or swear words, presumably because the person I said it to found it heinous to be reminded of biological reality and reported it as “hate speech” 🙄

And double standards? Where one group is entitled to much higher standards of treatment than anyone would ever bother wasting on the other group?

Is the key characteristic of an abusive relationship.

Demand of labour provision such as 'use my chosen language to me and create the reality for me that I want to live in' made to a group without power to say 'no' or have equal expectations of respect for their words and identities also part of the definition of 'oppressed group'.

Which in this case would be women.