Would MNHQ consider extending the definition of "misgendering"

[HermioneWeasley]

Hi

I wondered what MNHQ and MNetters thought about extending misgendering to include referring to people as "cis"? There are many of us who find it offensive and reject it. Given that whenever it is used, there always at least one poster asking what it means, it seems unhelpful at best and offensive at worst.

No Polter, and you know it.

Either:

Woman and woman,
or
Cis woman and trans woman.

Simple.

Although the cis and trans bit is only really needed in the 0.000001% of times when it's actually relevant.

"I hate cis, it is a stupid term. I don't agree with censorship. I think people should be able to say what they think and be challenged for it."

But they are not. If you think having a penis makes you a man and call Caitlyn Jenner "he", your post will be deleted.

That is the point of this thread.

Nope.
Man, woman, trans man, trans woman. All different gender categories. Trans women are not the same as women, or men, so they have a category to describe them which is trans women. That is not offensive or othering unless calling a man a man is ordering to distinguish him from a woman.

ordering othering

Simple until you ask someone what "cis" actually means.

MTTs are a category of men, not women.

"Woman and woman, or Cis woman and trans woman"

The existing definitions are perfectly adequate to differentiate between the two categories:

Woman: Adult human female
Transman: Adult human female who feels like a man.

Man: Adult human male
Transwoman: Adult human male who feels like a woman.

We don't need a separate category that states "adult human female who feels like a woman" because that is a tautology. Adult human female is a woman. We don't need to specify that she does not feel like a dog or a man or a rock.

Since Species Dysphoria is real, defining transdogs as apart from dogs is othering. It makes transdogs (people who feel they are dogs) feel unwelcome and likely to commit suicide. It makes you transphobic. So you must either say:

Dogs and dogs

or

Transdogs and cisdogs.

Good luck with that, Tiggy.

Interesting stuff in that link, by the way:

In a 2008 study by Gerbasi et al., 46% of people surveyed who identified as being in the furry fandom, (usually defined as a person with a strong connection with some sort of animal), answered "yes" to the question "Do you consider yourself to be less than 100% human?" and 41% answered "yes" to the question "If you could become 0% human, would you?"[6] Questions that Gerbasi states as being deliberately designed to draw parallels with gender identity disorder (GID), specifying "a persistent feeling of discomfort" about the human body and the feeling that the person was the "non-human species trapped in a human body", were answered "yes" by 24% and 29% of respondents, respectively.

It's about an oppressing majority not wanting the oppressed minority to have equality.

Women are not an "oppressing majority", ffs Tiggy.

And "cis" does not mean "not trans". I am neither trans nor cis, so do not need either descriptor, as I don't have an inner gender identity to match or not match with my physical body. I'm not alone in this.

I don't mind being called cis if it is in the context of a discussion where it is necessary to distinguish between someone who is trans and someone who is not trans. Same as I don't mind being called described as NT in a discussion about SNs in order to differentiate. However I do not want a default identity of ciswoman, I am a woman.

It's about equality Bathtime

White people and black people,
Straight people and gay people,
Cis people and trans people.

Yes, it certainly does seem to be about how certain men would like to define "equality" - in a way that removes women entirely from the discussion. Now we're all just "people" with various descriptors.

The category of woman is gone.

Now let's consider the plight of people who were born white but feel their inner racial identity is black.

Time to put racism aside as an issue and concentrate on the plight of this poor oppressed minority and their interests.

There is no longer such a thing as a "black person".

Just "cis black people" and "trans black people".

It's not the name that causes the "othering" of MTTs from women. As men, MTTs are other than women.

Yes, Bathtime, that is a much more accurate analogy, you took my thoughts and expressed them perfectly. Thank you.

Where are the female to male trans in all this complaining and bitching?

I'm getting confused.

I understood cis to mean a person who feels they have a gender identity and that gender identity is one which matches their sexed body. So for example, a woman who feels she has a female gender identity.

Now it seems to be being used interchangeably with what I thought was the meaning (as written above) and with the meaning of 'non-trans' person.

I wouldn't be willing to call myself 'cis' if that meant I was saying that:
A. I have a gender identity.
B. That gender identity matches my biological sex.

So my main issue with 'cis' is with the first definition. I have less issue with it if it just means 'non-trans', but it seems necessary.

It seems unnecessary that should say.

soupdragon I was wondering the same thing, are female to male trans getting involved in all of this?

Indeed. Cis presupposes acceptance of gender identity as an entity distinct from biological sex and lived experience (lady brain) and is being used to describe a category of people who already have a descriptor - woman - which doesn't need to be qualified with a prefix.

This issues between men and transmen are different than those for women and MTTs because the dynamics for women in male space are different from men in women's space. If men want to take issue with transmen as men, that's an issue for men. I wouldn't push men to accept transmen as men nor would I get involved in telling transmen whether they should or shouldn't be accepted as men.

I don't mind the term ciswoman if it is used in to clarify.

So if someone asked "is Whenshewas a transexual?"

The response "no she is a ciswoman" would be fine for me.

If the term ciswoman started popping up in everyday conversations for no good reason then I would get a bit annoyed.

The response "no", would surely suffice?

I agree with bath. It should be enough to say "no".

No would work too in this example but cis wouldn't bother me.

(Like if someone asked is I was a lesbian, no would work but the longer explanation of - no she's heterosexual is also fine).

is I was a

oh the shame