Cis as a slur

[CircleSquareCircleSquare]

I am sick to the back teeth of being called a cis woman or just cis. I don’t need a prefix.

Is there anyway we can campaign for this to become some kind of slur? It is so othering, incredibly demeaning, unnecessary and offensive.

It comes from Latin; it's a prefix meaning originally meaning "on this side".

So we keep hearing.

My #preferredprefix is, nevertheless, no prefix.

Cis woman here. Sick of transphobes trying to claim they are being persecuted. It's a descriptive, and if you experience it as hostile, maybe consider who you have been attacking first?

I teach Latin.

'Cis' is used to define place or time, not gender.

It really, really doesn't have an appropriate use in this discourse.

& that is NOT how it's used in this context.

It is not descriptive, certainly not descriptive of me. I'm not transphobic and have not attacked anyone. It is used aggressively and consistently as a slur against women. It is not a neutral term. Use it to describe yourself if you wish, but don't assume you can apply it to any one else.

I don't have to "identify as" a woman because I already am a woman.

The word "cis" is not relevant to me at all and is a projection of ideas, as usual from those who aren't biologically female, about what women should be and who gets to define us.

Sick of transphobes trying to claim they are being persecuted.

Why should anyone dream up a word to describe half the human population, which already has a name, and continue to use it when told that it's offensive by the people it's applied to? I'm a woman, I'm not a cis woman.

Jog on.

Well, it's used because it's the antonym to trans, similar to ab- and ad- or in- and ex-.

And it's used because if you're discussing transgender issues, you need some term which means "people who agree with their sex assignation at birth".

I have attacked no one. I still hate the term cis. The youth of my day didn't want labels and boxes, now they seem to be the in thing.

So, trans women and women/trans men and men would do. No need for another term.

(Incidentally, I just used a search engine to search for "cis women" and "cis men". The former got 249,000 hits; the latter 198,000.)

They are calling women non-men in some organizations so I expect that cis is just the first of many terms that will be used to describe women as "other", just as men have always done.

And it's used because if you're discussing transgender issues, you need some term which means "people who agree with their sex assignation at birth".

I think you’re muddled. Where does that leave people who know that sex isn’t “assigned”?

If you really, really need a term to describe non-trans, then natal does the job perfectly fine.

Or just trans woman and woman does the job.

Feck off with cis. I use many words to describe myself, I will never use that.

If you really, really need a term to describe non-trans, then natal does the job perfectly fine.

And that. Or “biological”.

Why should anyone dream up a word to describe half the human population, which already has a name, and continue to use it when told that it's offensive by the people it's applied to?
We know why.

So many people coming out with the “but its Latin” thing as if we are supposed to go “oh alright then!”

I studied Latin for my Leaving Cert (Irish A level equivalent) and as part of my career use necessary Latin prefixes on a daily basis. I’m not an expert but I’m familiar enough to be confident that the trans Vs cis categories were not borne of or even run by language scholar. Most similar terms aren’t either, that’s fine, however most other terms don’t offer “but it’s Latin” as the soul rebuttal.

Cis is hogwash with no long term basis in our language.

If trans is on the opposite of the normal/the baseline/the given/the established type, why does the established type need a label? It’s a nonsense.

I reject it wholly.

I would bet my bottom dollar that the majority of those hits are either from TA's or women objecting to be called a cis woman. I am not sure google hits is a good indicator of anything.

I don't know what people were saying about the term "heterosexual" half a century ago, but something tells me the discussions probably went along the same lines.

And it's used because if you're discussing transgender issues, you need some term which means "people who agree with their sex assignation at birth".

I was not assigned a sex at birth. I was recognised as female. I am now a human female adult and as such a woman. I need no further qualifier.

Yep, no such thing as 'cis'. There are men and there are women. Some of the men would like to be women and vice versa. They are called 'trans'. We don't need a word for the other 99.9%.

It's a descriptive, and if you experience it as hostile, maybe consider who you have been attacking first?
2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a violent hate crime.
4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.

I am not a 'cis' woman; I do not accept and identify with my own oppression by men.

'Cis' is a fucking offensive label placed upon women by misogynists.

I studied Latin for my Leaving Cert (Irish A level equivalent)

Ditto. Much good it's done me

Agree @Circle.

'Trans' & 'cis' aren't used in Latin as antonyms. Not even in Kennedy's Shortbread Eating Primer...

I don't know what people were saying about the term "heterosexual" half a century ago, but something tells me the discussions probably went along the same lines.

It’s a linguistic nonsense to even try to make that comparison.