Banning the term "cis"

[OlennasWimple]

Apologies if this had already been done, but can MNHQ consider banning the term "cis", given how horrifically offensive so many users of MN find it?

I don't think I need to set out the background and reasoning to this request (but can do so if it would help!)

who is being meanspirited? People who insist on sticking an unwanted label onto other people, or those who object.

Oh well. As to what the majority of women think about it... the majority of women don't speak English, and of those that do I'd be willing to bet that only a small minority have ever come across the term cis. Words do matter, but maybe it'd be better to treat cis as a rather than a - to avoid it being a derailing button for transactivists to push?

You go for it, Violet. To be fair, MNHQ have already read and commented on the thread and clearly seen none of the 'vitriol and hatred' you're seeing, so you might be on a hiding to nothing here....

Maybe you should ban people calling trans people delusional?
Or ban repeated use of statistics which claim to show trans people are as violent towards women as men are?
Or ban people saying that life changing surgery is 'having your bollocks chopped off'
Or ban people repeatedly saying transwomen are just men in frocks seeking to get their sexual thrills?

It's basic othering of people. Repeated use of the word 'them'. Mass generalisation about a group.

MN are very swift to delete threads about other groups that resort to awful stereotypes. But transwomen are fair game for othering.

But it's rare to hear people speaking up for trans people on such threads. I can't blame them - anyone who stands up gets targetted.

But plenty of people complain about 'cis'. But don't seem to care about the 'othering' that goes on. The use of dodgy statistics to make claims about transwomen being as sexually violent as men. The use of words like delusional.

It's great people care about 'cis' though.

What is CIS?

As for comparing 'cis' to the N word - I must have missed the bit where trans men and women enslaved and lynched women

Transmen are biologically female, and thusly do not belong to the class of people who enslave and lynch women.

Transwomen are biologically male, and, as a matter of fact, do belong to the class that enslaves and lynches women.

I am surprised you didn't know this.

Hold on a second. How dare you say that any woman who does not object to 'cis' is happy with gender stereotypes? Just because something gets said over and over in the circle jerk of these threads does not make it true.

This is what cis officially means: "Identifies with the gender assigned at birth".
And gender is stereotypes. This is the meaning of gender. Didn't you read the thread?

I am happy to stand up for trains people, and stand with them if need be. It is perfectly possible to do this and not want to be called dis.

Cis is a completely unnecessary prefix. Either you're a woman or a transwoman, women don't need to tell people that they have a particular sort of personality.

If you are an adult female you are a woman. If you are an adult male that identifies as transgender you're a transwoman.

I am a woman and cis is offensive, it says that being a woman is not enough.

"Or ban repeated use of statistics which claim to show trans people are as violent towards women as men are?"

Do you wish to show studies that say otherwise?

Do you wish to show studies that say otherwise

Do you think 'that study' where there were 16 violent crimes in 30 years - and it does not say how many people committed them and what the crimes were - does say that?

If you truly believe that data, then that just shows your prejudice and bias?

'Or ban repeated use of statistics which claim to show trans people are as violent towards women as men are?'

You want to ban references to a scholarly study because you don't like the results it found?

Still, as long as people keep repeating that data, then people will believe it, won't they?

It worked for the Sun when they targetted Muslims. I'm sure it works for people who wish to demonise the trans community.

You want to ban references to a scholarly study because you don't like the results it found

Again - 16 crimes - where the data does not say what the crimes were - and over a 30 yr period cannot be used to show that MTF are as violent towards women as men are.

You can keep repeating it as often as you like but you are just showing your prejudice.

But it works for the Sun and the Daily Mail. Keep using such statistics without going into them and you can keep up the impression, can't you?

Job done. I'm sure you don't give a shit about the effect you have on the trans community - just as the media doesn't give a shit about the Muslim community.

You're welcome to discuss the limitations of the study. The sample size is small because the trans population of the country was small.
Given the magnitude of the implications for women of the policy decisions that are currently being made, more research would be nice.

You want to ban references to a scholarly study because you don't like the results it found?

They already succeeded in banning factually true statements like the one that transwomen are biologically male.

Males are known to be more violent that women. The statistics that say so have even been conducted by biased patriarchal scientists, who, if at all possible, would certainly have tried to downplay those differences.

There is no logical reason whatsoever why donning a dress would suddenly make those statistical differences vanish in a cloud of glitter.

You're welcome to discuss the limitations of the study

Why thank you. But that won't stop people repeatedly making the claim.
Yesterday, it got changed to as sexually violent towards women - all based on that small sample size.

If you keep telling people the same stuff, it sticks. It reinforces their views. Confirms their views.

Just like the media do for Muslims, immigrants, people on benefits. Classic othering. When you other people, it just makes it easier for awful things to happen.

There is no logical reason whatsoever why donning a dress would suddenly make those statistical differences vanish in a cloud of glitter

Because that's what a transwoman is all about, isn't it?

Can't you see how you fuel stereotypes and other people?

Yuk.

The vitriol and hatred on here is actually startling.

I am reporting the entire thread. Far to much hatred

Please point to the posts that you think warrant being deleted, and that are full of vitriol and hatred.

I still find it laughable that I'm supposed to believe that woman is a fluid concept.

You know when feminists complain about 'dungarees and short hair' stereotype?

Look at yourself and ask what stereotypes you have about trans people.

Every time I see the prefix "cis", I think "What a load of pretentious, navel-gazing shite".

I am a woman. That is: an adult human female. Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs.

I don't need or require further definition.

By attaching the prefix 'cis' to women, WE are being othered. No longer women, but cis women, a subcategory of women.

There need not be a new description of 50% of the population just to distinguish them from a very tiny group of people.

Heck, my spellchecker doesn't even like 'cis'!

soren - re "where the data does not say what the crimes were"

Actually it does: "... violent crime was defined as homicide and attempted homicide, aggravated assault and assault, robbery, threatening behaviour, harassment, arson, or any sexual offences."

There's no way to be a male and claim you're actually a woman without holding a stereotype about women.

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs.

I'm not a fan of that as a definition-that excludes those of us who have rubbish reproductive equipment (not that I'm bitter). I agree that what a woman is is entirely based on biology though.