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?

@NecessaryScene

Not all Gender Critical people don't believe in gender, some agree that it is an existing social concept, but downplay its importance relative to sex.

I think you're making an alternative when they're actually simultaneous - not believing in queer theory's gender identity (innate feeling), but recognising gender in the feminists' sense of societal sex-based expectations/roles, and downplaying/critical of that.

Thanks for this. I was having trouble digesting that.

@somethinginoffensive

4. That it incorrectly implies everyone has a gender identity. This argument can go two ways: either that people don't have a perception of their own identity or that gender doesn't exist as a social construct. Generally these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of what identity, gender & social constructs are.

Picking up on this one, it's more than just implying everyone has a gender identity, it's implying that a woman who is female and not trans is automatically a cis woman. And as such they not only have a gender identity, but they are comfortable with this gender identity and it is an identity that matches their birth sex.

[[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender]]

So, I both understand the social construction of gender, understand that I have grown up in a gendered society and as such have had a gender identity of woman imposed upon me. But I am a woman who is very uncomfortable with the gendered expectations and as such am categorically not a cis woman.

People find it comfortable when their self-perception and society's perception align, but it's important to be aware that misalignment can exist within a gender category just as much as between them, i.e. society telling you that women are X when you, a woman, see yourself differently is going to feel uncomfortable. This is similar discomfort to society telling you that you're gender X when you see yourself differently.

Someone who is okay with rigid societal gendered expectations of women would normally be called traditional, conservative, rightwing, or simply sexist. It's not related to their gender identity.

@MsBlue you said "People find it comfortable when their self-perception and society's perception align, but it's important to be aware that misalignment can exist within a gender category just as much as between them, i.e. society telling you that women are X when you, a woman, see yourself differently is going to feel uncomfortable. This is similar discomfort to society telling you that you're gender X when you see yourself differently."

I don't think these are the same things at all. For example, if society says that women are X, let's say quiet and gentle for instance, whereas you're a woman that is really loud and outspoken - that might make you feel uncomfortable, yes. The problem here is the gender stereotype that women are quiet and gentle, there is no problem in a woman being loud and outspoken. The discomfort comes from the gender stereotype.

That's not the same as a man being told he is a man and not feeling comfortable with being a man so deciding he must actually be a woman.

BlibbyBlobby, you put that really well.

MsBlue, can you please explain what gender identity is, as opposed to gendered expecations?

I think I agree with Kittii, although this is getting a bit confused.

A woman is an adult human female. If a woman doesn't feel comfortable being called a woman when they physically fit the category for a woman then that is a disorder, as being a woman is not a matter of perception. They may well choose a gender identity of man, and be called a trans man. Similarly a trans woman is a man who identifies better with gender stereotypes for women and as such wants to be seen as a woman.

A woman who doesn't feel comfortable with gender stereotypes is not a cis woman as a key part of cis is actively identifying with the gender stereotypes of woman.

They are just a woman who rejects the idea of a gender identity. As such, no one else should disrespect this decision.

society telling you that women are X when you, a woman, see yourself differently is going to feel uncomfortable. This is similar discomfort to society telling you that you're gender X when you see yourself differently.

The genderist view "I don't fit the gender society tells me I am. I must be a different gender. I need to change my gender."

The feminist view "I don't fit what society tells me a woman is. Society must be wrong about what women are. I need to change society"

And since gender is mutable and sex is not, both reactions are rational within their context (although I would argue that the genderist would ultimately be happier realising that gender doesn't even need to exist in the first place).

And the two can coexist quite happily as long as we recognise that sex and gender are two different things, understand when we are dealing with one and when we are dealing with the other, and don't try and use the same bloody names for them!

Someone who is okay with rigid societal gendered expectations of women would normally be called traditional, conservative, rightwing, or simply sexist. It's not related to their gender identity.

Depends on how you are using the word "woman" here.

Someone who is okay with rigid societal gendered expectations of female people would normally be called traditional, conservative, rightwing, or simply sexist - true

But

Someone who is okay with rigid societal gendered expectations of women based on gender as an identity which is inclusive of trans women - for example that idea that cis- and trans- women are just innately more feminine, caring, unaggressive sexually or whatever - would currently be called progressive and left wing!

So you see why trying to use the same name for completely different things can get us into a pickle of confusion very quickly. Which is a bad thing, unless of course one is deliberately trying to obscure what's going on.

A trans GC person is someone who holds GC beliefs and is trans. 'Non GC trans people' would simply be everyone else who is trans but have different beliefs.

But if there are different types of gender critical beliefs, which ones do GC trans people believe?

Someone who is okay with rigid societal gendered expectations of women would normally be called traditional, conservative, rightwing, or simply sexist. It's not related to their gender identity.

But why then do transwomen and transmen do so much, go to such lengths to conform to rigid gender expectations associated with their target sex? Wouldn't the truly liberating thing be to express yourself how you want while accepting that your sex won't change?

Someone who is okay with rigid societal gendered expectations of women would normally be called traditional, conservative, rightwing, or simply sexist. It's not related to their gender identity.

Ah, just noticed another weasel word slipping in there - in what sense was "gender" being used?

I read it as gender in the feminist sense - the social roles and expectations superimposed onto ones' physical sex that are not in fact in any way innate.

But perhaps you actually meant gender identity - the expectation that one's innate gender identify matches ones physical sex? I think the only group that believes in an innate gender identity that typically aligns to sex is actually the genderists with their concept that most females are "cis" women.

Refutation of which is, of course, the subject of this thread.

This has been a really helpful thread as I’m still learning about and navigating this wider issue.

Is there a similar thread anyone can direct me to, which explains more about pronouns? I instinctively feel that this is wrong. Ie they seem to be popping up everywhere and I wonder how long until workplaces start to gently encourage use of pronouns in signatures in the spirit of inclusion. I think I know how I feel about this but I’d like to read some more reasoned arguments to better understand this and equip myself with some knowledge.

So if anyone can point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. I’ve tried searching a couple of times but haven’t found what I’m looking for yet. Thank you.

I think it would be a lot better if it were called “sex identity”.

I would hazard that outward “gender expression” is so that one passes / indicates outwardly that they want to be addressed as the opposite sex.

For me, it's the sheer audacity of a group so adamant that "misgendering" is an act of aggression and that "identity" is the be all and end all yet they insist on referring to me in terms that I most definitely do not identify with because it comes from a set of values I do not ascribe to.

I am no more a "cis-woman" than I am a "sinner" as an atheist, for example.

@LadyPeppermint employees are already being coerced into displaying their pronouns on email signatures and in meetings. Thankfully some people are speaking out against this but, sadly, risk the usual abuse of being called a bigot and transphobe for doing so.

The term cis is ultimately self defeating, if that prefix genuinely was genuinely adopted en masse, then we’d see cis women’s sports, cis women’s health services, sexual orientations attracted to exclusively cis women. Cis women only spaces too. Discussions on how cis women face prejudice and disadvantage. Then all the trans people would want to be cis, then the whole cycle repeats.

Sadly, it seems that misgendering women is OK because women don't count. It's only "literal violence" and "potentially lethal" if you misgender a trans person. Fine to misgender, threaten and coerce anyone that doesn't accept their ideology.

@Dervel

The term cis is ultimately self defeating, if that prefix genuinely was genuinely adopted en masse, then we’d see cis women’s sports, cis women’s health services, sexual orientations attracted to exclusively cis women. Cis women only spaces too. Discussions on how cis women face prejudice and disadvantage. Then all the trans people would want to be cis, then the whole cycle repeats.

Nah, that's what TRAs want, because then they can point to "cis privilege" and make parallels between making something cis-only and making something whites-only.

Also defining stuff as for "cis women" even following a general adoption of the term "cis" for people who actively identify as cis and those who reject gender altogether would still exclude all the female people who accept gender ideology and identify as something other than woman, which "female" doesn't.

Do not let the genderists define the playing field, because then you have to play the game by their rules.

The truth is that the gender believed in by genderists and the physical sex of the body are totally different. The only reason society is trying to use gender in situations where it's obvious the pertinent factor is sex is the oh-so-innocent insistence by genderists that they have the same names.

The arguments for cis seem strange, convuluted.

But for me one of my reasons is very simple.

Another ‘group’ no matter who you choose to define yourselves… ie trans… does not get to tell me how to define myself.

trying to use the same name for completely different things can get us into a pickle of confusion very quickly

Absolutely! The terms woman and man are about a person's sex. If people want their inner feelings to be recognised in some way as a gender identity they need new words, man and woman already have a clear meaning.

'Cis' is problematic because it holds and puts forward the idea that natal women are a sub-group of the greater group 'Women' which includes men who think they are women.

Women are women. Only women. We don't need 'cis' to separate us from non-women.

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.)

Yes, I think this is key.

It might work with an objective definition of trans like "someone who portrays themselves socially as being the opposite sex".

In which case you could say you're a "cis woman". But then men who portray themselves as women are "trans men".

Exactly. I've said many times here, that is the only way I will accept it as a term, if "trans women" are understood as biologically female FTM trans people.

For me, it's the sheer audacity of a group so adamant that "misgendering" is an act of aggression and that "identity" is the be all and end all yet they insist on referring to me in terms that I most definitely do not identify with because it comes from a set of values I do not ascribe to.

They do it, because it's about power.

They do it, because it's about power.

Absolutely, that's all it's ever really been about - power and subjugation to an ideology and set of luxury beliefs imposed by some of the most privileged sections of society on those who they deem lesser.

Fuck that noise.

Quite, terry.

Thanks to everyone who has replied - there's some really interesting points here and I'm going through all of them. A lot of them resonate with me and help me to frame why I feel so strongly about not using the word. Thanks again for your insights and opinions!