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!)

sorena that still doesn't alter the fact that woman/man are biological definitions.
One's personal 'sense of identity' does not alter one's biological state.
Of course it's fine if some workplaces wish to respect a person's 'sense of identity', that doesn't actually change their biological state.

I chose the N word as an example (and apologies if I offended anyone) because it's a term (with Latin origins and everything) that some black activists have sought to reclaim and use with pride to refer to themselves and other black people. However, most people still regard it as offensive, and even if not directly affected by it would object to it being used as a general description. Even though I am white Caucasian, if I saw a pp using the term about themselves I would consider reporting it as offensive; if I saw a pp using it to describe MNers in general I would definitely report it. Ditto other words in more common that get thrown around but only seem to apply in a pejorative sense to women (witch, hysterical, harpy etc)

merrymouse No, I can't, because I'm neither. I'm not a man, I'm not a woman.

straigjt and cis aren't equivalent- using 'non-gay' to talk about heterosexuals would be closer- and as much of a nonsense. and "breeder" would come closer still to replicating the effect of using "cis" when women are clear that they object.

Cis can go hang. I am another who is female, know I am female, and not cis, will never be cis. To compare it to hetero/homosexuality is offensive. Sexuality is innate, gender is not.

noeffingidea honestly, let's just agree to disagree. Women is a gender identity, just like man, genderfluid, agender etc etc.

But how does that make you different from anybody on this thread who doesn't identify as a man or a woman beyond the physical consequences of the body they were born with?

It doesn't?

Why not just have a person identity?

sorenayes lets disagree.I will stick with scientific facts, you can stick with made up terms.

Well I have just realised I am a cow of the highest order, so anyone referring to me as a cis women will get chinned.

OK?

noeffingidea literally every term is made up? So yes, I'll stick with that.

sorena, but by using the term 'cis' there is a clear idea of a woman not just as a person who happens to have a biologically female body, but somebody who must identify as a particular gender.

You don't want to be pinned down yourself, but that is exactly what the term 'cis' does.

sorena well some were made up to describe biological facts, and some were made up to describe social constructs, yes.

'Women is a gender identity, just like man, genderfluid, agender etc etc.'

But how can you say that with a straight face given the massive, massive implications of being born a woman as opposed to a man, compared with the bog all it will mean to your life if you announce that you are agender or genderfluid?

Sorena - I wasn't talking to you but have to say I am flabbergasted that you still don't understand why women are offended when you assume they are A-OK with the gender bullshit society assigns them. It has been explained multiple times just on this thread. Is this a problem of English comprehension?

"Women is a gender identity, just like man, genderfluid, agender etc etc."

Dictionaries disagree with you. In the English language:

Woman = Adult human female, where:

Female = Of the sex that can bear young or make eggs.

BengalCatMum I would identify as non-binary (that just basically means neither man or woman). Some non-binary identify as trans, some don't. That's up to the individua. I identify as agenderfluid, a subcategory of non-binary, and I don't know if I identify as trans. I don't identify as cis.

Someone who doesn't identify with a gender is agender.

Lets agree to disagree. Woman is a biological state defined by our chromosomes.

I like my definition better, having basis in observable scientific fact.

"I'm not a man, I'm not a woman."

Let's start with sex. Do you know if you are male or female?

"Someone who doesn't identify with a gender is agender."

Have you considered calling yourself "gender critical"? Many of us are.

sorena, you don't identify as cis, you identify as non-binary, yet you don't seem to see that the term 'cis' enforces a binary gender definition on people who don't feel the need to identify as any gender, and have, objectively, suffered because of definitions of gender.

I think, and believe me I thought long and hard, but in the end I think I agree with Exit

I don't care if a person wishes to be identified as man or woman.

I don't care if they wish to assign themselves all the labels under the sun.

I do care if they choose to assert that their wishes must automatically overrule mine

I do care that they choose to label me in order to make themselves 'the norm' and to traduce the biological meaning of sex/gender etc.

I really do care when, simply by saying "I am woman" I open myself up to cries of bigot, accusations of hatred, vitriol and other nastiness.

You see, I am a woman. Any man who chooses to identify as a woman is fine by me, and I would hope the vast majority of the population (at some future date, given the % of neanderthal thinkers any society is blessed with) would agree. However when it comes to the inveitable emotional clashes when private and personal spaces are required by both women and men who identify as women then I anticipate a hotly debated discussion. I do not anticpate that the man who chooses to be a woman gets to demand and receive priority and to have his rights protected over and above mine and that of every other woman.

And that really is what is being asked for. Not a discussion, a compromise to be searched for, but a fait accompli and the further label of "bigoted bitch" for any woman who disgrees.

That is quite simply, wrong. You can apply all sorts of label to how wrong is: patriarchy, misogyny, whatever you like. But at root it is simply wrong because it seeks to deny a large cohort of a voice. That that cohort is (again) female/women) only makes it more startling and depressing.

So... I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar .... I AM WOMAN

i just looked up 'agender' and it seems to have a whole raft of possible meanings.