Language and use of cis

[Rainfallrainbow]

I’m struggling. I do not identify as a cis woman. I am a woman. I can see why many are offended by this prefix.

BUT...

My daughter is currently being assessed for autism. It’s almost a certainty that she will be diagnosed with ASD. As we’ve gone through the diagnostic process, I’ve found my language has changed. When talking about my daughter vs her peers, I now use the term ‘neuro-typical’ to describe those without autism. I’m beginning to hate when people use the term ‘normal’. If I thought anyone was annoyed by me describing them as neuro-typical, I in turn would be annoyed because when comparing them to my daughter, this is what they are.

Isn’t this the same as the use of the word cis?

I must add I was beginning to be really annoyed by the use of cis, but this just popped into my head this morning and I wondered, actually, how is it different?

Not really, no, it’s not. Because trans people are not “women” in any sense of the word. They’re biological men with gender dysphoria. NT and autistic are two types of neuro development, like male and female are two sexes.

It’s not the same at all. The words man and woman don’t require a prefix for the correct definition. Calling people without autism ‘normal’ is not the same because ‘normal’ suggests people with autism are ‘abnormal’ which is stigmatising and othering.

Cis is not a prefix used by Medical professionals in my own experience. Not once has anyone ever in real life referred to me as cis. If they did, they would receive a swift dressing down.

'Woman' is biologically accurate. It doesn't need any additions. Neuro-typical is accurate too. It isn't coercively imposed on anyone. It makes very little assumptions, in reality (a neuro-typical person can still have severe depression, say) whereas cis does - and offensive ones at that.

Neuro typical is the word you would use though. Its not offensive. The word to describe women is women. Why change it to something many find offensive?

I can't stand the term "cis" because it is usually defined as gender matching the sex you are born as, and as gender is a social construct - something imposed on us rather than innate - no one fully matches their supposed gender.

Pretending there are "cis" people who do completely conform to a gender is a way of maintaining the gender hierarchy, and so saying that women have chosen our position at the bottom.

Neuro-typical on the other hand is an actual provable thing.

I think it's different because the objection to 'cis women' is that 'trans women' is not a category of women in the first place.

I didn't have a problem with 'cis' when I heard it used to mean 'not trans' in a broader sense - like, "trans people and cis people alike have both campaigned against such-and-such". I have a bigger problem with it when it's specifically "cis women", because first it's setting up "trans women" as another parallel group of women, and because second it comes as a package with a theory of gender identity which says non-trans women identify with our 'gender'.

The problem with saying "I'm not neurotypical, I'm normal" or "I'm not straight, I'm normal" is that it sets up other groups (autistic people, LGB people) as abnormal. "I'm not a cis woman" doesn't set up trans woman as an abnormal group of women - it's saying they're not women, because women has a biological definition. They're men, and there's nothing wrong with being men, including men that like do things coded as feminine. They're not freaks if they feel happier wearing makeup - they're just not women.

Also cis is highly political. It attempts to push women down because it asserts that to be cis is to be privileged and all privileged people should lower themselves (or women should, anyway)

Neuro-typical people are not asked to adjust their status or make way for those who aren't neuro-typical. Ideally they are asked to be compassionate/understanding/make adjustments to society as a whole to help those with autism but it doesn't mean stepping aside and losing any voice or opportunities as a result. I am not diminished in any way if, let's say I make adjustments to a work place I lead to make it a more autism friendly environment. In fact I benefit because hopefully I then get an autistic person on my team, say, who is bringing lots of skills and strengths with them (I appreciate not all people with autism can work. It's just one example)

Plus cis is just plain inaccurate. Many women don't feel comfortable with the restrictions that gender constructions impose on their life. I am not 'cis.' I am not happy knowing that women have their genitals mutilated/are expected to give up careers to act as unpaid carers/can't get a conviction if they're raped, etc. etc.

I agree with the previous posters.

I would also add that 'cisgender' is usually used to denote someone 'whose gender matches that assigned to them at birth'.

I believe that gender is a social construct which has been and is used to oppress women. I don't want to validate it as a concept. I believe that there might be some general differences in behaviour between sexes but most of it is forced on women through the way we are socialised and puts us at a disadvantage later in life (sex pay gap etc.). I don't want to say that my gender is 'woman' and therefore I am expected to wear high heels. I just am who I am and my sex is female.

A more accurate analogy would be to call neuro typical people 'not autistic'.

All of them, all the time, irrespective of whether you are talking about people with autism, or not.

I don't find neuro typical in the slightest bit offensive. It's accurate.

As is woman. Cis woman is inaccurate.

I am not cis. I am a woman. You all know what that means. It needs no further, unneccesary qualification. Transwomen are a subset of men and not women. They are (rightly!) extending the bandwidth of what it means to be a man, not a woman.

People who apply the term may assume I am cis because I am biologically female, my hair is long and not blue, I am not making any outward statement of being 'queer' and I present as a woman (eg I use the language of women authentically and I share the experiences of women). But they are wrong.

Actually, from all the gender descriptors I have read, I can only conclude that I am either non-binary or agender as I both 'identify' with aspects of both genders and no gender because I don't confirm to a female gender stereotype.

Ergo, I am not cis.

I am also not neurotypical.

Ok, so lets start with the thing you say you are actually having a problem with.

You say you would be upset if someone objected to you using the term ‘Neuro-typical’ to describe them. You have made an external assessment of them, and they object. Well someone may appear neuro-typical, unless you have made some effort to ascertain whether they have a neuro-divergent diagnosis of their own, you can’t really make that assessment.

To all intents and purposes I appear normal. I actually have ASD myself. Over the years, I have developed many strategies for dealing with other people in a way that makes sense to them. I still have to think very hard about some body language I exhibit, because it is learned. I still sometimes miss major social cues. I can still reach a level of over stimulation where all I can do is clap my hands over my ears and shut down to avoid a meltdown. I would object if you describe me as neuro-typical.

One of your daughters friends may have, now or in the future, a diagnosis of ADHD. They would be no more neuro-typical than your daughter, although facing different challenges.

It is one thing to create a description of a group to use in contrast, and quite another to insist on applying it to an individual.

This becomes way more of a problem when used with the words ‘trans’ and ‘cis’, since these are feelings, not measurable differences.
Trans originally referred to gender dysphoria sufferers. This is about a feeling. Calling someone Cis makes an assumption about their internal feeling, on the basis of a brief external assessment.

Even on this basis, I would no more class myself as cis than I would neuro typical. As a teenager I briefly presented androgynously and suffered gender dysphoria badly enough that I self harmed.
Even though I now look somewhat female, and live a very traditional female roll I am not comfortable with the stereotype as peoples assessment of me.

Once you widen the umbrella of trans to include anyone who ‘presents as female’ this becomes MUCH more of a problem. Trans now means ‘feels that they fit the stereotype of the opposite sex’.
This in turn means that cis now means ‘accepts the stereotype of their biological sex.’

People are men or women purely by their biological sex. This is a verifiable biological fact. Some people may have a sense of feeling wrong in their body or expected societal role, but expecting everyone else to re-brand their biological reality on the basis of your feelings, to avoid making you feel bad, is arrogant in the extreme.

Also men and women are biological classifications with no value judgment attached until you stereotype. Your factual biological classification should not offend you unless you buy into the traditional expectations and stereotyped behaviour of the sexes.

Even identifying as non binary is a problem for me, because I would be identifying myself out of the expectations, but in a way that placed everyone who didn’t publicly identify out firmly back in their box. It also wouldn’t change the expectations and discrimination faced n the basis of my biological sex.

There is no definition of woman that includes both me and a trans woman, I have no feeling of womanhood, but I’ll be damned if I let someone else re-define it to push me out.
I don’t think anyone should be allowed to place their feelings above my lived reality.

Cis doesn't come from biology, does it? Cis and trans are used in organic chemistry to name things - haven't they just taken it from that? Therefore it's nothing to do with the body or brain.

I’m leaning away from calling people ‘neurotypical’. It’s ultimately an assumption about something I don’t fully know. I will call them non-autistic when we need to differentiate.

I find ‘cis’ offensive for the reasons described upthread and won’t use it.

I agree with you. Its a word that's rarely used outside of discussion of trans issues. It's simply a word to say 'not trans'. For example, I might say, 'I'm cisgendered, but I sympathise with transwomen'. Or 'I'm cis, so I can't see the whole picture, but I think that we should be mindful that transwomen will have an unfair advantage in sport'

Both of those are true. You could replace 'cis' with 'biological woman.' To me, it simply means that my biological sex is in alignment with my gender.

But then, on here I'm clearly a minority. I do believe there are differences in men and women's brains. I dont believe gender is a complete construct, and im around transpeople quite a lot. I've even gasp shared a bathroom with a transwomen who doesn't yet 'pass' and I was gasp not bothered.

I agree with the posters above, especially about cis being an assumption of someone's feelings that you cannot know anything about. It is not about someone's behaviour or the way they interact or present themselves. I also use the word neuro typical when sometimes talking about my daughters (one neuro typical, one with autism). I would never use the word cis with either of them. They would look at me as if I was nuts if I did. Again, one very femine, one very gender non conforming.

The issue I have with trans and cis is the way they use language as sticks to beat people.
I had a very funny twitter exchange this morning whereby I was told to get with the times: male and female is biological sex and woman and man are gender. Thereby making it possiblr to say transwomen are women. It is exhausting and infuriating.

I find 'cis' offensive and won't use it.

I'm autistic and use the term 'neurotypical' to differentiate between those of us on the spectrum and those who aren't. I wouldn't use non-autistic because the starting point is autism and that doesn't make any sense.

This in turn means that cis now means ‘accepts the stereotype of their biological sex.’

This is one of the problems. Another is in casting women as a subclass of women, an elite oppressive group whose opinions need to be disregarded. It also means that the definition of 'women' as a class has moved away from biology and towards behavioural stereotypes. After all, what do trans and 'cis' women have in common that makes them all women?

To be honest I'm still confused about what part sexual dysphoria plays in this. Do trans people feel uncomfortable in their own bodies? In that case biology is important. Or do they want to live out their lives according to stereotypes associated with the opposite sex? In that case 'cis' really does mean being okay with stereotypes.

But then, on here I'm clearly a minority. I do believe there are differences in men and women's brains.

This always interests me. Apart from physiological differences, do you see whatever differences you think there are, being manifested in behaviour or a way of thinking?

@Datun I was going to ask the same question. I'd be really interested to see a list of innate male and female traits and abilities.

@TerfsUp - we only use ‘neurotypical’ in the context of ‘non-autistic’, though, so autism is still the comparison point.

It also has undertones of autistic people as ‘neuro-a-typical’, which goes back to the normal/abnormal issue discussed above.

I’m autistic, and me and my non-autistic friends and family form a neurodiverse population. :)

'I'm cisgendered, but I sympathise with transwomen'.

Are you truly cisgendered though? Have you accepted the feminine gender role? Do you not possess any masculine traits or perform any masculine activitites?

I'm autistic and use the term 'neurotypical' to differentiate between those of us on the spectrum and those who aren't.

Yes. I don't use NT to label someone and I certainly wouldn't use it perjoratively. I don't use it as a 'slur' and I've never wielded a baseball bat, whilst posing threateningly and with Die NT Scum written on my arm

This always interests me. Apart from physiological differences, do you see whatever differences you think there are, being manifested in behaviour or a way of thinking?

Well yes, actually. I think it's plain to see in society. Please not that everything I'm about to say is in general. Of course, almost noone is going to fit every single stereotype. However, men usually are more assertive, women usually are more talkative and emotional. Men usually have better spatial awareness. Women usually are more nurturing. As I said, this is not true for every person. Dresses are not biological. But perhaps there is something in the brain that makes most women want to 'pretty'.AGAIN, not all women will display every trait. I'm not tidy, I'm in a relationship with a woman, Im not particularly talkative.

I just can't see how we could be the only animal on earth exampt from gendered behaviour. We're not that special.
This leads me to belive that yes, there could be biological misalignment between the body and the brain. That there may be a 'feeling' that I cannot imagine.

I recommend 'why men don't listen and women can't read maps'. It's a book surrounding a meta analyses of neurological studies, and talks about evolutionary biology.

If this is in general, and many women and men display these same characteristics, how can they possibly be used to determine if someone has somehow got a "opposite sex" brain due to some genetic or developmental issue?

Firstly there is no excuse whatsoever for 'cis'. It's not a word.

If you want to use 'cisgendered', that's a slightly different thing.

Secondly people don't label themselves NT, nor do autistic people insist that NT people insist that describe themselves as NT at all times.

NT is used only in the context of discussions related to autism. It's not used when you are not talking about autism. You don't define people as 'NT', nor do you define people as 'cisgendered'.