GC protected belief and use of cis

[OffYouGoNow]

Now that gender critical beliefs are classed as a protected belief, can we argue that the use of ‘cis’ ‘cis women’ etc. - particularly in the workplace - constitute as harassment?

God yes please.

I’m not using it. And I will forever anyone who refers to me as such.

There is no need. Trans woman implies they are different from women, so why the need to use this word is beyond me.

I don’t know the rules around harassment when it comes to using this term, but I would say yes it could be if we are saying gender is protected. That’s means calling a biological
Woman “cis” could be seen as a slur.

But look into it. I don’t really hear many people saying it except on TV.

Especially when if the phrase ‘biological/born woman’ causes mass hysteria and fits of the vapours...

I don't think it is used enough or considered a slur by enough for it to be considered harassment. Certainly if you have asked someone to stop using it in reference to yourself and they continue, perhaps, but not for general use.

(I hate the term btw, I even got blocked on FB by a trans mamma friend when I objected to its use)

It is frequently used as a slur, is certainly 'politicised', and even if used by someone 'innocently' (and I doubt there can be anyone who is aware of the term who isn't also aware how much many women hate it), these days if something is 'perceived' as a slur or a dig, it becomes a 'microaggression' at the very least.

Freeze peach for me but not for thee, amirite?

Even the original judge in the Maya Forstater employment tribunal said he wouldn't use the term because Maya found it offensive.

If someone referred to me as a 'cis' woman rather than a woman and I asked them to stop using the unnecessary prefix, or labelled me as 'cis' when I don't accept that label, then to continue using it must be deliberate and therefore could be considered harassment, I should think?

In the same way as if someone referred to a TW as 'he' based on their perception and the TW asked them to use 'she' but they persisted with 'he', that could be considered harassment, could it not?

You want to say people who use C*s in the workplace are harassing you?

Well, crack on with that ...

(No, I don't use that term ... Ever ... along with the T*rf nonsense either and I'm not sure that most people who do use those terms are aware of the Political Weight that kind of language carries)

Have you tried asking individuals not to use that word? Are lots of people using that word in your personal orbit? or are we talking hypothetically?

Just askin ... not judgin

@yeahbutnaw

Freeze peach for me but not for thee, amirite?

I think you are agreeing with us here, no?

@yeahbutnaw

Freeze peach for me but not for thee, amirite?

That has always been your position, amirite?

OP, the use of cis in and of itself won't constitute harassment. That would depend on the facts, as spelled out by Mr Justice Choudhury.

I'm not a lawyer, but there probably needs to be some test cases to work out exactly where the lines are.

Joolz the term was used multiple times on work intranet, including with reference to how ‘cis’ women cause harm if they don’t allow TW into women’s spaces and how views of such women could be considered as hate speech.

I complained about this before Maya’s judgement. I was ignored.

Also - more general, surely policies where they state ‘cis’ could be classed as undermining equality law - if not harassment - as it is not a neutral statement of fact, it assumes belief when belief may not exist or be rejected.

@joolzfromyork

You want to say people who use C*s in the workplace are harassing you?

Well, crack on with that ...

(No, I don't use that term ... Ever ... along with the T*rf nonsense either and I'm not sure that most people who do use those terms are aware of the Political Weight that kind of language carries)

Have you tried asking individuals not to use that word? Are lots of people using that word in your personal orbit? or are we talking hypothetically?

Just askin ... not judgin

Yes I find whenever I object I am always without fail told it's just an accurate description of me. Which if you want to look at it that way then there should be no objection to me calling a TW a male seeing as it is an accurate description. It has to work both ways, or it doesn't work at all.

Ok given the context, I don't think it is harassment per se but there needs to be a better balance and using cis won't achieve this.

@OffYouGoNow

Joolz the term was used multiple times on work intranet, including with reference to how ‘cis’ women cause harm if they don’t allow TW into women’s spaces and how views of such women could be considered as hate speech.

I complained about this before Maya’s judgement. I was ignored.

Also - more general, surely policies where they state ‘cis’ could be classed as undermining equality law - if not harassment - as it is not a neutral statement of fact, it assumes belief when belief may not exist or be rejected.

The usual not-a-lawyer, test-cases caveats apply, but that could potentially come under creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

I don't think saying something offensive in and of itself should constitute harassment - that's much too low a bar. But you seem to be describing something more involved than that.

Surely whatever the rules are for misgendering would be applicable here?

Whatever is considered harassment for misgendering would have to be equally applicable to the use of cis?

That has always been your position, amirite?

Indeed.

Also - more general, surely policies where they state ‘cis’ could be classed as undermining equality law - if not harassment - as it is not a neutral statement of fact, it assumes belief when belief may not exist or be rejected.

It more than assumes belief it is enforcing belief. Cis is not a neutral term, it is clearly stating that women are a sub set of their own sex class and that TW as the other sub set are women.

I am not a sub set of my own sex class, I am not cis and I will not be referred to as such.

Not quite the same, but I’d like to see the BBC held to account for this. When they use terms like “cis” and “sex assigned at birth” in their features, they are immediately and automatically not neutral. They are using the terminology of one particular political ideology as if it were neutral, objective and factual terminology. Which it blatantly isn’t. Gross misuse of their power and reach, and deeply detrimental to the rights of women.

A form of collective harassment of their GC viewers/readers (and an attempt at indoctrination of their unaware viewers/readers) in my eyes.

Definitely a partisan perspective, which goes against their charter, does it not?

DS had one of these external groups in to tech the whole relationships and sex stuff.

Yes they have a shit tonne of trans and gender materials, and did use the C word (which DS knows is a finger jabbing term). It wasn’t as bad as some ive seen and did follow the law.

OffYouGoNow

Joolz the term was used multiple times on work intranet, including with reference to how ‘cis’ women cause harm if they don’t allow TW into women’s spaces and how views of such women could be considered as hate speech.

Hmmmm
That puts a slightly different light on your original question (which - pardon me - read as a hypothetical ... if this were to happen, will this approach be acceptable given the legal judgement just passed ... etc)

Somebody else on this thread said (Hang on, I'll get the quote ... )

WotgunShedding

Surely whatever the rules are for misgendering would be applicable here?

Whatever is considered harassment for misgendering would have to be equally applicable to the use of cis?

Which seems to be balanced ...

But I guess that a quiet 'don't use that phrase/word, it adds nothing to the debate' approach would be the first line of argument.

If people are still doing it, then Escalate ... of course

Well I wouldn't go and report it but if I was called that at work I'd feel much more comfortable now asking them not to and then, if they got arsey, I might even suggest we went to HR together to talk about it.

Could a complaint be made to the BBC about the use of the term cis?

I wonder if it's similar to calling someone an 'apostate' or other terms used to describe non-believers - tolerated, in context, but impolite at best and certainly not something a supposedly objective, neutral organisation should be using.

Using 'cis' aligns you with a certain ideology/political viewpoint that most people don't ascribe to. A body like an employer, for example, should presumably avoid using terms like 'Tory' or 'leftie' in the same way as they'd avoid 'cis'.

I would suggest individuals are free to use the term as they please, and others are free to make them aware that they find it offensive and object.