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!)

I'm not a 'cis woman,' I'm a woman, and until the trans* lobby can come up with a definition of being a woman that doesn't rely on the acceptance of damaging essentialist stereotypes (pink, dresses, heels, ladybrain) I'm not going to take 'cis' seriously, since by their definitions I'm non-binary and so is every woman I know.

The 'die cis scum' messages sent to gender-skeptics are enough proof to me that it isn't meant as a neutral term. It's not comparable to other descriptors. I don't mind being called a 'white woman' or a 'working-class woman' because I am those things. I'm not cis. Or does my right to self-identification not count, since I'm not biologically male?

I'm still waiting for a definition of women which a) doesn't refer to biology
b) doesn't involve gender stereotypes

I don't actually believe one exists.

Cross post, Cancelly

Come and wait for the definition with me, I've got .

I'm still waiting for a definition of women which a) doesn't refer to biology
b) doesn't involve gender stereotypes

Which is why transactivists have had to narrow the definition of woman down to 'it's how you feel inside'.

A feeling is difficult to refute and impossible to prove one way or another. It's not nice to deny someone's feeling and it's too easy to hurt them hence it's much simpler all round to pander to feelings.

I feel like a woman therefore I am is almost beautiful in it's simplicity if a little too Descartes for me.

"man in a dress" does have to stop, though.

The man in a dress thing is a bit misleading though.

To call a transsexual a man in a dress is crass and insensitive
To call a cross dresser a man in a dress is simply descriptive
To call a man wearing in a dress a woman just because he's wearing a dress is baffling.

A man in a dress really should be just that. A man wearing an item of clothing that is unremarkable in anyway. The problem is that we're proposing changing the law/how society operates on little more than that.

Whether it's offensive depends on which part of the trans umbrella one is sheltering under.

Bert, 'man in a dress' is a phrase I use extremely rarely. I'm either referring to a male man wearing a dress, or trying desperately to overcome someone's belief that clothing alters the wearer's sex.

Technically, if the person is wearing a dress and is an adult human male, they are a man in a dress. I'd avoid saying so as a rule because it's considered poor etiquette. But I'm not about to deny a very basic fact of human life.

Why Bertrand ?

Why does it have to stop? Sometimes the term 'man in a dress' is entirely appropriate.

If a transman decides to pop back in the closet and wears a dress, is it okay to call them a man in a dress?

I don't really need an answer, btw Just musing.

So are we allowed to say a woman in trousers?

Of course language evolves, and it's necessary to create new terms for new concepts, inventions and discoveries. But when that term is deemed offensive by those to whom it is applied, we tend to acknowledge that and find other terminology rather than tell them to get over themselves.

We don't tell people from the Asian sub-continent to get a grip if they are called a Paki

We don't tell campaigners for disability rights that they are phobic for rejecting terms like spastic

We don't tell working class people that they should accept being called a chav because it's in the dictionary

So why is ok to tell women who object to the term "cis" that they need to get a grip and they are transphobic?

The more I think about this, the more I see "cis" as a form of mysogynistic hate speech. We don't tolerate other forms of hate speech on MN, I seriously struggle to see why this term is acceptable

What is the downside to banning the term / limiting it to use in relation to oneself only??

I do think it's a bit disingenuous in the context of this thread to say "oh, man in a dress is just a value neutral
descriptor" though. In some contexts it might be, but not in a thread about transgender issues.

I agree Bertrand

Why should it not be used?

Surely Bert this is a thread about women not wanting to be labelled

"this is a thread about women not wanting to be labelled"

Well it was. But as usual it turned into a thread about the needs and wants of men.

"Why should it not be used?"
Because it's rude, dismissive and unnecessary.

I don't identify as transphobic so I can't be

Is there a word to describe adults who leave full time education without any understanding of biology, scientific methodology and evidence?

How is it any more offensive than your comment But as usual it turned into a thread about the needs and wants of men ? That's transphobic itself in the context of this thread.

True but women have needs and wants why are they not considered.
Sick to the back teeth of being told I should accept a label I don't want.