Really stupid question about the term 'cis'

[Spottybluepyjamas]

I've recently become very vocal about the sex and gender debate amongst some of my friends and family and can normally hold my own when someone is telling me that 'trans women are women' and that it doesn't hurt anyone else for someone to be able to switch sex, so why does it concern me.

However, I can't articulate why I disagree with the word 'cis'. In my mind I shouldn't have to give up the right to use the plain and simple word 'woman' without a prefix just to appease men (men shouldn't be front and centre in feminism), but I think there's more to it than that, something more insidious but I can't put it into words. Can anyone help me please?

It's that you are using terms from a belief system to which you don't subscribe. It isn't like atheist, but like heathen or infidel - the terms that believers use to categorise those who don't believe.

It also assumes you are comfortable with the gendered expectations of your sex, that your "gender identity" aligns with being a woman.

Cis means “on the same side of”. The TRA/MRA argument is that cis simply means “not trans”. It’s a handy way of saying a person is not trans so wtf is your problem it doesn’t hurt anyone it costs you nothing etc.
But cis doesn’t mean “not trans” it means on the same side of. If you were travelling from Paris to Rome you wouldn’t say you were doing a “cis-Atlantic” journey meaning it’s not transatlantic. For there to be any sense to it it needs to mean that your “gender identity” is on the same side as your sex. It’s dependent on you actually having a gender identity and that identity being nailed to femininity. That’s not the same as being “not trans” at all. It’s conforming without deviation to every stereotype associated with women and then making a claim that all of this dress, behaviour, attitude, skills and flaws etc are innate.

It isn't like atheist, but like heathen or infidel - the terms that believers use to categorise those who don't believe.

Or it's also like "protestant" or "catholic". It presupposes belief.

"cis" is "gender identity matches sex (assigned at birth)", "trans" is "gender identity doesn't..."

If you don't believe in "gender identity" or "matching", then neither cis nor trans applies.

It's a false binary - you reject the cis/trans binary.

I refuse to use it because I don’t identify with the gender connected to my sex. I don’t have a gender identity and I’ve struggled with the gender put on my by society all my life.

You'll note we've got contradictory descriptions of "cis" above, but that's because the genderists have a false conflation.

It's as if you have a religion that doesn't have a word for non-believer and they lump all non-believers in as one of their groups.

I'm reminded of a joke, set in Northern Ireland. "Are you protestant or catholic?" "I'm muslim, actually." "Oh, right... So would that be a protestant muslim, or a catholic muslim?"

Effectively you've got protestants asserting all non-Christians are catholic - using the same word for both believers who say they're catholic, and non-believers.

"Cis" is hence a general "out-group" signifier. Whether you're a believer or not, you're in the out-group. The "trans" are in charge.

I didn't consent to being relabelled.

I'm a woman. Born and biological.

It's up to those not in that category to name themselves but they don't get to name me.

So many reasons to hate it:

It makes women a subset in their own category.

It presupposes a belief in an ideology that doesn’t yet have basis in science.

It forces women to say they identify with the gender aspect of womanhood and the vast majority of women have struggled with this in their lives.

I would argue that everyone is non-binary or gender non-conforming to some extent and therefore using gender to label people is meaningless.

Read this excellent essay.

Cisgender - cui bono?

It clarifies things so well.

(Also: your question is the absolute opposite of stupid. Please don’t apologize for it.)

And it has been given to a group without their consent: there are terms people use to identify themselves but when another group uses a term to identify a group especially if it to place them in an outsider position then it can be seen as offensive: the n word is the obvious one or even queer when it moved from insult to identifier

@NecessaryScene

It isn't like atheist, but like heathen or infidel - the terms that believers use to categorise those who don't believe.

Or it's also like "protestant" or "catholic". It presupposes belief.

"cis" is "gender identity matches sex (assigned at birth)", "trans" is "gender identity doesn't..."

If you don't believe in "gender identity" or "matching", then neither cis nor trans applies.

It's a false binary - you reject the cis/trans binary.

This. It's like telling an atheist they must be a Protestant if they're not a Catholic.

It implies acceptance of a belief system.

I don't identify as having a female gender. I don't identify as female . If it was a choice , I wouldn't choose to be female

I don't see how my personality, likes and dislikes, cognitive ability are any different to those of the average man

I can see my sexual is female and that significantly affects my life and my life chances. I don't want to be forced to use the gents because they don't have san bins and I have been raped. I want some sex based things to continue like changing rooms, prisons , medical treatment to be tested equally on male and female bodies

So not cis , not trans either

That's the problem with cis .., it's forcing a gender into people who may not have one whilst allowing trans people to choose

@NecessaryScene

It isn't like atheist, but like heathen or infidel - the terms that believers use to categorise those who don't believe.

Or it's also like "protestant" or "catholic". It presupposes belief.

"cis" is "gender identity matches sex (assigned at birth)", "trans" is "gender identity doesn't..."

If you don't believe in "gender identity" or "matching", then neither cis nor trans applies.

It's a false binary - you reject the cis/trans binary.

This is a better way of explaining it!

I think I've become used to seeing cis, and particularly cishet, as insults that I forget that it is often used without that baggage, in surveys etc. where it is well meaning in some ways but jars nonetheless. Thank you to NecessaryScone for putting it better!

TheCountessofFitzdotterel

That’s a good article that makes the point that cis is too wide a category and that cis privilege actually hides where the violence is coming from: cishet men

The analogy in using black people infiltrating latino spaces is slightly off though because black people don’t have a history of violence against latino people. But yes, in terms of the point the article is making, it makes sense.

I think I've become used to seeing cis, and particularly cishet, as insults that I forget that it is often used without that baggage, in surveys etc.

That’s such a good point. When it stops being an insult I’ll consider using it.

It implies some degree of 'consent' to being socialised and treated in accordance with the female gender role.

I do not 'identify' as a woman and I certainly disagree with the way I (and others) have sometimes been treated as a result of being female. The use of 'cis' minimises this - as if everyone deliberately and vocally 'identifies' with 'their' gender, making it seem like somewhat a choice to undergo misogyny and sexism.

I also dislike it as an axis of oppression, implying (in Viewpoint Theory) that eg. the trans person is always more oppressed than the 'cis' person and therefore has more recourse to their own opinion, to special privileges etc. There's no nuance to this and no recognition of the difficulties of being biologically female or socialised from birth as female. It's how we've ended up with eg. Laurel Hubbard and Mridul Wadhwa.

I also dislike it as an axis of oppression, implying (in Viewpoint Theory) that eg. the trans person is always more oppressed than the 'cis' person and therefore has more recourse to their own opinion, to special privileges etc

That is the primary motivation for it existing. To flip the "intersectionality" thing - giving one "opt-in" axis, and something that can turn the "progressive stack" against women.

(And you'll also note women's own axis - sex - is totally removed. This is not an addition, it's a replacement.)

Cis this side, Trans the other side - what's the definer of this side & that side of what? The definer is Woman. So by using Cis you define the Women out of being the definer. Cis Alps & Trans Alps are not Alps, they are areas that sit either side off The Apls. Thus Woman is never Cis or Trans 👍

It's a load of old bollocks and I don't subscribe to it.

It is an offensive term and shouldn’t be used.

I agree with the above comments, and also, if we accept the label, it implies we accept an ideology that says not only we are a mere subset of women which includes males, but that we must in every case put our interests aside (single sex spaces, the right to our language, the right to meet or organize as a class, and so on) and prioritize the interests of male "women." Its intent might be more accurately expressed by "sub women."
It's very interesting how those who find not using preferred pronouns to be inexcusable have no trouble insisting we are "cis" whether we like it or not.
I think it could be a useful term to describe women who would have no problem showering with transwomen or never attending female only events.

I reject it because I don't have a gender identity.

Just as gender comes from linguitics, cis comes from chemistry. Neither have anything whatsoever to do with biology, zoology, or primatology.

*Or it's also like "protestant" or "catholic". It presupposes belief.

"cis" is "gender identity matches sex (assigned at birth)", "trans" is "gender identity doesn't..."

If you don't believe in "gender identity" or "matching", then neither cis nor trans applies.

It's a false binary - you reject the cis/trans binary.*

This.