The case against 'cis'

[Seer]

As I'm having conversations on fb recently I'm noticing that using 'Cis' is becoming the norm (obv, only in some circles).

I'd like to be in a position to query its use but realise that I don't have a logical response, and "I really don't like it' won't cut it!

What do you see are arguments against it?

Thank you!

I don't believe that trans people have an inner sense of gender. I just don't think it is a thing. I understand that they think they do but from my perspective what they have is either body dysphoria, a deep held fetish or a personality that enjoys things that are stereotyped as 'belonging' to the opposite sex.

The latter group describes pretty much everyone to one degree or another which is why so much of trans ideology seems ridiculous and the opposite of progressive.

Then of course there are a few that are motivated solely I expect by pissing off women in a subversive way.

As others have said:

'Cis' assumes everyone has a gender. Many people believe gender is a social construct. I do not have a sense of gender. It is highly subjective.

Conversely, I know that I am a woman (this is my biological sex, not to be confused with woo woo gender) because I have things like a womb and periods (and am currently breastfeeding my poorly toddler...)

I do not mind if other people have a strong sense of gender. To me, and to most gender critical people, it feels anachronistic and limiting - girly being nurturing, lipstick and unicorns - boyish being tree climbing, action men and mud - but each to his/her own. However - gender and sex are not the same thing

Also I take huge offence at the use that midwives and doctors 'choose' or 'assign' a gender to a baby! This is absolutely crackers! They see a vulva, they know baby is a girl. They see a penis, baby is a boy. And congratulations either way!

This idea of 'assigning a gender' is straight out of some paranoid dystopian science fiction.

Thank you datun we cross posted. There really isn't an easy way out of this, is there?

I'm also trying to fly under the radar on fb so I can actually have useful conversations about this stuff without being dismissed as a terf.

I think going the route of asking what gender means etc might be the most helpful. Even if I can't win the argument (given how moveable the goal posts are), it might at least make some people stop and think a bit.

If something fits, it doesn't feel like anything. It's only uncomfortable things that you can feel strongly enough to notice.

Cis doesn’t fit for a lot of women.

It's useful to have a word that mean not-trans.

Woman does a good job of describing women as opposed to transwomen.

It’s a label that’s been given that has no need. If it’s used to mean biological woman it’s just tautology. Woman means biological woman. And, as not all women subscribe to or “fit” gender stereotypes, labelling them up as ‘woman who is the gender expected of them’ doesn’t make any sense.

Non-binary is a reasonable description of most people's adoption of gender roles.

My preferred position would be to get rid of gender altogether but failing that a non-binary future doesn't sound that bad.

My concern is that because we habitually conflate gender with sex, some people are now arguing that because gender can be non-binary that means sex is non-binary too. This is cobblers.

Seer I also like Datun's point about woman simply being a biological description like mare or ewe, and so not needing anything else.

So many official docs now use gender when they mean sex (which I think may have partly come our prudishness to use the word sex!) that a lot of people confuse the two without really examining either.

Good point about tautology, vodka!

If there a word that genuinely just meant 'not trans' I'd happily use it in reference to myself. I understand the desire of trans people not to feel othered by language.

Cis, however, is not that word. Cis means that you identify with the gender that matches your biological sex. Or that you identify with your gender 'assigned at birth.' As a feminist, I see gender as an oppressive, hierarchical system used to make essentialising statements about both men and women, but to the detriment of women. It's a Cartesian system whereby men have the majority of the positive qualities, and women the negative.

I don't believe in gendered souls, essences, or brains. I don't identify with any gender, so calling me 'cis' seriously offends me. It's like saying that I willingly identify with my own oppression and that of other women.

Non-binary is an interesting one. Because I quite like the concept. You are telling the world that you are not identifying as a man or a woman, so please don't make assumptions and treat me in a certain way.

It does however reinforce the idea that there are two inner genders, you just don't subscribe to them.

Yes I loved that too, macaroon.

I keep thinking I've fallen into a parallel universe to even need to be having these conversations though!

Many pps have eloquently covered why cis is bs, but the use of cis also allows TIMs who are male no matter how they identify to posit themselves as more oppressed and indeed are oppressed by females.

This creates a situation where a TIM like Caitlin Jenner is more oppressed than Malala for e.g or that rape/sexual assault/ abortion is cis privilege.

It's utter utter garbage.

Cis had become a bit derogatory in some circles. Generally it just means that you aren't trans but some people use it as part of an insult. Think of gay people who used to refer to straight people as 'breeders'. Then of course if you feel that women's right are being undermined by the transactivists then you may feel like they are stealing the term women from women. I must admit that I find it a bit annoying myself. I'm not trans. I want trans people to lead nice safe lives from discrimination in peace and quiet. I have nothing against trans people. But I do not like people who try to make everything about them. My gender is not about them a quite frankly none of their business. It's a bit annoying for them to impose the trans/cis agenda on me and they have no right to demand that I divulge where I am a transwomen or a natal woman. It's no different to insisting that a transwomen only calls herself a transwomen instead of calling herself just a woman. It's unecessarily political. We don't feel the need to refer to woman as straight women or black women (out of the reasonable context) so why refer to them as ciswomen for no reason?

This is an excellent article that explains why cis is pointless, mainly because assuming gender is a spectrum means that the majority of people will be non-binary.

"Cis" implies you accept your place in the gender hierarchy.

It's a "women, know your place" word.

That's what I dislike about 'non-binary', it assumes that there are two genders to identify with.

Also that means I'm a 'non-binary woman' (or just 'non-binary'?) rather than the biological and often relevant fact of being a 'woman'.

Such great points outy!

agender means not having any internal sense of gender id

according to the things I have read this is "rare" !!!!!!!!!!!

of course if middle aged women start saying they are agender, people will simply disregard this statement. as per what the poster above did.

Obviously if I say I am agender and therefore fall under the trans unbrella, people will think it's fucking ridiculous. So we don't actually get to define our own genders at all really, do we.

I think going the route of asking what gender means etc might be the most helpful. Even if I can't win the argument (given how moveable the goal posts are), it might at least make some people stop and think a bit.

Is a good one, because it makes people think.

You might also slip in the word lady brain.

Because, essentially, that's what they're saying. That men and women think differently. Not because of their bodies, not because of the way they are treated, just an innate, different way of thinking. And, in the case of trans, men are thinking like women.

If you could steer it in that direction, you will have people definitely questioning it. Most people will definitely pause if they are being told that women think in a certain way. Because they know damn well that it will be a way that disadvantages women. Irrational, emotional, etc.

And, it's clearly nonsense. Men and women do not think differently.

But it's quite hard to dismiss thousands of years of assumption unless you force the questions.

'Lady brain', to anyone with an ounce of critical thought will certainly start the ball rolling.

"I don't mean a lady brain! I mean an inner feeling"

So ask them describe it. With every single word in the English language at their disposal, describe that feeling.

And watch the sexism unfold...

I thought on the Scottish consultation one of the most head scratching questions was the one about non - binary and gender fluid people.

What legal protections do these people not have? What ways can they be singled out for inclusion that isn't already available to them (and the rest of us)?

I really struggle with 'gender fluid'

First, how can an identity be a fluid? Or what does it mean?

Second, if it just means 'gender identity can fluctuate' how can anyone argue that we should be protecting a class of people based on such an unreliable characteristic?

Trills, can I ask (honestly not picking holes!) - if you agree with the idea of labelling yourself as cis, but disagree that you subscribe to the stereotype of female gender, why do you not view yourself as non binary or agender?

Cis doesn't just mean not trans, it's Latin - it has an actual definition, which is "on the same side as".

Reading some of the above points, I am beginning to think that the way forward for those of us who are gender critical may be to declare ourselves non binary. We can talk about the distress that we experience when gender stereotypes and expectations are coersively imposed upon us. The only way to relieve ourselves of this distress is for people to refer to our biology only when defining us/ referring to us.
I don't think this is far from the truth for many posters anyway (the distress that is!)

I'm filing 'lady brain' away for future use, datun thank you!

up you're right, it sounds so ridiculous! It's actually mind-blowing that this stuff doesn't occur to people who can usually think critically (like the people that I'm talking to on fb).

I sort of agree with Trills that there is a good chance cis will be common parlance in a decade or too. After all it is often younger generations that shape language going forward.

Doesn't mean I like it or agree with it though. Women have had many labels foisted on them that they never wanted.

*two