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.

Reading this and other threads has really opened my eyes but has also crystallised my thinking.

I completely share Ehric's feelings on this (although I could never have expressed them even half as well).

'Cis' is an insulting label and has no place here. I hope MNHQ will listen.

Joining the dislike of "cis" - I'm not trans, but I'm defintely not "cis" either. Just female.

cis is a horrible term. I am amazed that mumsnet are being so slow in sorting this.

I cant believe this is even a discussion. It seems obvious to me that calling someone something repeatedly after they ask you not to, is a personal attack.

Oh, and i'm not a cis-woman. I'm just xx beyond.

Just thought I'd bump this

I don't normally bother with MN threads on trans issues any more but a blanket ban on the word cis would be totally wrong because it would mean trans women aren't being included as women. Which despite the views of many vocal people here, isn't the view of most of the medical profession and UK law.

I'm happy to be called a cis woman when necessary for clarity. If someone doesn't like the term and objects, then of course it shouldn't be used for that person in future. FWIW I know many men and women who also use cis as a descriptor, usually when summarising their privileges.

There is already a perfectly adequate word for women: women
Transwomen are transwomen
No need for cis at all

Citrus - would you think it was right that people used the P word to refer just to people of Pakistani origin that are fine with it even though Pakistanis (and other South Asians who racists have applied it to) who are massively offended by it would see the word bandied about? That's pretty much your argument for 'cis'. The word is horribly offensive to a large number of women.

citrus if clarity is needed, what's wrong with "born" women or "biological" women?

On another thread someone was deleted from a newspaper comments section for saying that they didn't want to be labeled as "cis" (I believe that someone else was deleted for saying that they didn't feel that they have an internal gender identity)

I'm not sure a blanket ban of CIS is then way to go,but can someone please clarify whether or not a report of someone being upset at being labeled as CIS would stand?

I don't understand why we are not getting an answer on this

Is it being discussed at MNHQ in which case fair enough, or not...

MNHQ.

I'm a longstanding commenter on this site. I dont have children. Neither can i have children. I am, however, a transmother.

I have always felt like a mum and therefore look forward, as a transmum, to being able to take part in every survey that is aimed at mothers because I feel like a mother, despite the less than 1% chance of being able to either bear my own baby or adopt another.

You should note that threads about breastfeeding exclude me and other transmums, as do those about childbirth and, indeed, bringing up children. My feelings should be respected, and would ask that you change the name of this site as to not exclude transmums.

sunshine

Mnhq

Are we ever getting an answer? Can I report someone if they call me CIS and I feel I've been misgendered

I wouldn't mind but I'm very polite and wouldn't dream of misgendering someone and I've been misgendered in real life

Does MN currently delete posts by posters who for example, call Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner "he"?

Yes they do Brian

I am in support of the request to ask MNHQ to apply their misgendering policy to posters who request not to be referred to as cis.

Deliberately continuing to use "cis" as a descriptor for someone who has made it clear that is not how they identify is so clearly obnoxious that I cannot understand why it is a difficult question for MN.

To draw an analogy, when involved with the bisexual community when younger, many members started to use the term "monosexual", to refer to lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals. It was short, convenient, and...

...seen as deeply, deeply offensive and hurtful by a number of members of those groups. I won't go into all the arguments here, suffice to say there were many parallels. So, for the most part, it became a term people stopped using. Because it would have been seen as abusive, and deliberately provocative and attempting to erase people's lived experience and history and identity.

Brian
Oh no, I'm being misgendered on this very thread

I also hate being called a ciswoman.

The name "mumsnet" is a bit transphobic isn't it now I come to think of it.

Not really. Men can be mums because they feel like mums. Just like they are (and have always been!) women if they only feel like women.

Words don't mean anything anymore. Welcome to Newspeak.

I am diligently reporting "cis" posts that I believe are misgendering...not sure I'm going to get any where with it

If the answer is no, fair enough...might not agree but I'm not in charge of the site

If mnhq are thinking about it, again fair enough. Might be nice if they lest us know

It's the rudeness of ignoring the issue completely I have a problem with

I do not have a problem if someone uses the word "cis" to describe themselves or to ease the conversation by using it as a generalisation. I have a big problem with someone saying it about me or as an insult

This was posted (not by me) on another thread, and is where we are going if we don't stop this "cis" bollocks now: gay man fired for saying "don't call me cis".

www.washingtonblade.com/2015/06/04/miss-gay-advocate-resigns-after-anti-trans-rant/

(The headline says "anti-trans rant". It wasn't "anti-trans", it was this guy saying "if you can misgender me against my will by calling me cis why can't I misgender you?")

I don't care if anyone wants to describe themselves as cis! I don't want to ban any word at all! What I want is for this ridiculous assumption that if you aren't trans, you are cis, and the assumption that I can't say "don't call me cis" then I am a horrible horrible bigot. I don't want to be called cis because I'm not fucking cis.

I don't have a problem with how people choose to define themselves. I have more of a problem with how people choose to define me.

I have a HUGE problem with people redefining language. It evolves, of course it does, but not without a fight.

I have a HUGE problem with people rewriting history. Add to it, by all means. Clarify it, put it into context by modern standards, but don't erase it, don't negate it. Pretending something didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. (An example of this is using photoshop to erase Bogie's cigars in film.)

Therefore, I cannot say 'Caitlyn Jenner? She was the winner of the 1976 Olympic Decathalon." It must be Bruce Jenner, it must be 'he.'

However, I also will not say "Bruce Jenner? He was on the cover of Vanity Fair in 2015." It must be Caitlyn, it must be 'she.'

One of the many good things about the trans debate is that it's finally put the word 'sex' back to its rightful place, as in 'Did you learn the sex of the baby during your scan?' It should never have been "gender" in the first place.

Perhaps this is better suited to Pedant's Corner, but this newspeak, this imposition of words that are unwanted, is critical to how weand future generations will think.

We are moving toward a world where everything can be what it is not, and reality, science, facts merely get in the way.

If this post gets deleted because I used "the wrong pronoun", then it is an example that my refusal to use Newspeak is a Thoughtcrime and I will become an Unperson.

(Clearly I've rambled, and I don't wish to imply anything against MNHQ. I quite like MN. But I value freedom of speech above said liking. Therefore, rather perversely, while I do not wish to be referred to as cisgender, I don't believe it should be banned on this site.)