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.

Because TIM use 'woman' to describe themselves, the word has become meaningless.

I can see why some women would use the clunky phrase 'cisgendered woman' to differentiate themselves. I don't agree, but I can see why they do it.

Cisgender woman and proud of it But... what sex are you?

Cos a cis gendered woman is, if you unwrap all the tautology, a man/trans woman!

As in I identify with the gender construct and stereotypical affects of womanhood. Which no actual women ever needs to do, as she is an actual woman!

@Curious:

Not really.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as: "Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex."

I was born a woman (sex: female) and am happy being a woman. Ergo, I'm "cisgendered" according to the dictionary. If I was unhappy with my sex being female and felt a conflict between my sex and who I am - wanting to be male - I would not be cisgendered.

I don't have a "sense of personal identity and gender". So I am agender? I was left off the list when it came to assigning "gender". I am a woman though, that's my sex. I don't require any other label.

These definitions are getting more and more important in this context. I think i might be trans by the definitions given here. I accept that language changes and we need to incorporate new concepts.

If you are a cisgender woman, then the 'cis' bit applies to your gender and the 'woman' bit to your biology?

The generally accepted definition of woman is an adult human female (vagina XX etc)

If you're cisgender then you accept the stereotypes society applies to your sex?

That makes me a trans gender woman.

Puresummer The word was added to the OED about 2 years ago. It doesn't mean it is a reality, it just means it is a word in common usage!

www.independent.co.uk/incoming/cisgender-has-been-added-to-the-oxford-english-dictionary-10343354.html

If you accept the concept of cis then that is indeed its definition. But if you do NOT accept the concept then, like me, it is entirely possible to disagree with the dictionary definition of a word's common usage.

My take on it is that it was coined/misappropriated in order to give the whole transwoman = woman ideology more traction. So I reject it as it seeks to separate me from my own inner identity. It is, in essence, meaningless to a biological woman. It only has any purpose for men who wish to be accepted as female.

I was not assigned a gender at birth. My sex was recorded. My identity is not bound by my sex but is shaped by societal ideas about gender, behavioural stereotypes. Some of which I reject, some of which I embrace.

flowers that's it! The tautology is quite innate and takes some unravelling, but that's it, in essence!

"Cisgender-woman and proud of it."

I'm glad you are comfortable with it, that's your choice. Whatever works for you.

Here's the thing though, you cannot speak for the rest of us.

And actually your use of "cis gender" rather than just "cis" is quite useful. While you may believe in an innate internal gender, this does not mean that everyone does. Personally I don't.

So it's not possible for my inner gender to match my biological sex, therefore I don't see how "cis" makes any sense at all for me.

The other aspect to this is that when I think of gender, I think of it in terms of the social expectations placed on my sex. And as those expectations are largely in place in order to keep men at the top of the hierarchy I can safely say I do not "identify" with the gender associated with my sex. I do not "identify" as subservient, decorative or objectified - that I am treated this way is why I am angry and why I am a feminist.

Telling me that I have to accept a label that says I do identify with it is deeply offensive.

If "cis" merely meant that I didn't suffer gender dysphoria then I'd be more willing to accept it - though slightly confusedly as no other medical condition has a counter definition - but as TRA's are keen to point out, not every "trans" individual has GD.

Private if you google .gov.uk cis gender you get results that show 'cis' being used in government publications. You also get results for a construction industry scheme.

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.

'Heterosexual' describes what you are. It means you are attracted to people of the same sex.

'Cis' describes what you are not. Calling me a 'cis' woman means I'm not a man who calls himself a woman.

I want to be define by what I am, not by what I am not when compared to men. And I don't think there are any other terms which try to put people into boxes of what they are not.

Your argument is exactly like people who used to use 'coloured' and 'normal' about people
No one used these words in conjunction with each other. It would have been 'coloured' and 'white'.

• If you're cisgender then you accept the stereotypes society applies to your sex?

Accept, and conform to. And then, it's not even as simple as a bell curve, 'gender' is surely multidimensional. A person may appear to conform to some gender stereotypes but not others.

'Cis' is trying to put women back into a box for the convenience of men.

Also, if I've got it right, and I am a trans woman. The men that call themselves trans women, shouldn't. They should call themselves trans men.

Before you call me transphobic for suggesting how trans people should define themselves, consider what your imposition on cis for women who don't accept it is.

Sex is also a protected characteristic, at the moment. Do the proud cisgender women on this thread want to retain that status?

I don't really understand why using 'cis' is apparently perfectly fine because its a 'factual descriptor' (plus it's Latin innit), even when women vocally reject it.

But calling a transwoman 'he' or 'a man' is a huge no no. Is that not a 'factual descriptor' then?

Succinctly put Ellen. That's my point too.

I don’t like it because it means I basically have to submit to being happy with the gender ‘woman’ or be thrown out of the definition of woman despite being female and being socialised as a woman my whole life.
I do not have an innate gender I have a personality and I reject the gender ‘woman’.
But I am a woman.

I don’t want to be forced to accept a concept that I feel is regressive and oppressive just so I can continue to call myself a woman.

The Labour Party says a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, well I don’t identify as a woman I AM a woman but if I don’t ‘identify’ as one then I must be non binary.

By this reckoning a man who feels like a woman has more claim to the word woman than an actual woman.

No. Just no. Trans people can identify how they like but I reserve the right to be given the same courtesy.

"Your argument is exactly like people who used to use 'coloured' and 'normal' about people"

When Rachel Dolezal, a white woman, decided to identify as black, and indeed state that she was black, the consensus was that she was a fraud. No-one told the black community that they were now "cis black".

Should we be saying we're all a little bit trans if we aren't 1950s feminine stereotypes? Would that be as annoying as 'a little bit OCD' is to those with OCD? Or does it legitimise 'proper trans'?

According to the TRA’s there’s no such thing as a little but trans that’s the crazy thing. Anyone can identify as trans even if they have no gender dysphoria and don’t change their appearance or behaviour and they are just as legitimate as any other trans person. There is not a hierarchy, I could identify as trans right now and would be.
That’s the point, that’s why the trans posters on these threads are so annoyed, they get called truscum for saying ‘wait a minute I have gender dysphoria I’m not the same as someone who dresses as a woman twice a week’.

a few loud others

Bloody women, being loud an' all.

i give my kids christmas presents. that does not give anybody who sees this the right to assert that therefore i am christian and that i must believe in everything it says in the bible.

i am an atheist. i am happy (lucky) to live in a society where i am free to be one and also free to choose to celebrate christmas culturally if not religiously. i do not believe there is a god but i am happy for other people to hold different beliefs from me as long as they don't force me to believe the same as them.

the word "transubstantiate" is in the OED too:

^VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
Christian Theology
1Convert (the substance of the Eucharistic elements) into the body and blood of Christ.^

it does not follow that it is actually possible for that to happen. it is just a word used by the people who believe in its relevance. there's a big difference in refering to yourself as "cis" and in referring to others as such.

Teacup I agree the TRAs wouldn't like it but if they want any feeling of trans to be as 'valid' as a GRC and protected as such, then if we're all a bit trans we can't be cis and we're protected too?
It's not quite #ManFriday but it's along those lines. It doesn't solve the trampling on women's rights but it offers some protection to those women protesting.

The word WOman already has a prefix and so does the word FEmale. These preferences does already denote in some way that NOTman and NOTmale. Using them means I've accepted that I'm not male. CIS is actually redundant.

**preferences does = prefixes do