A thought about 'cis'

[Fleek]

I was just lying in bed thinking last night and wanted to share what popped into my head with people. I'm sure this has occurred to others (everyone else?) because it's pretty obvious but I haven't seen it written down explicitly anywhere else.

It's about the word 'cis.' Activists are so insistent we use that term ourselves and are labelled that. I've seen women be very articulate about why they hate it and I've nodded along with everything written. All the stuff about how I don't 'identify' as a woman, I am one because of my sexed body, and about how we don't want to be tied to any gender stereotypes that redefine being female as having swishy hair or loving housework or being submissive, etc. etc.

But there is another layer to it. The mantra is transwomen ARE women. If TWAW, then why would this movement want to force a label on us that actually distinguishes us from TW? Surely that's an own goal?

I think actually, it's a way of forcing us into being seen as/taking the position of oppressors. We aren't being branded as 'cis' in order to separate us as just a different type of woman (like the awful way they use 'disabled woman, black woman, trans woman') or just to change the idea of woman into being a gender and not a sex, it's also about firmly telling us we have privilege and are on a higher rung than TW. If we look at oppression Olympics generally, the only way to be a good citizen is to make supplication by publicly labelling your privilege isn't it? Saying 'I'm inadvertently an oppressor but I renounce my sin.' If you are an oppressor it's your job to shut up and sit in the corner. It's your job to hand over your power. You also need punishing, perhaps, if you take this idea to absolute extremes - threatening with violence, assaulting, eliminating, even? Look at Twitter handles. One vocal American actress had on hers for a long while (it might be there still) - 'I punch Nazis'. It's vital we are segregated by this label 'cis' so we can have some of the power we've gained over the last 50 years stripped from us.

It just interested me to think about it.

And yes. When you drill down to individual studies you can see the flaws instantly.

Small cohort, self referral, etc etc etc

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

That sounds great in theory. In practice we see training and advice being given that misrepresents the law so that organisations do not believe they can make even the provisions that would be legitimate and proportionate, either because they think it is not allowed, for fear of a mob attack on their reputation or to avoid expensive litigation.

So we end up with the ludicrous situation that a group of female-bodied people who want to discuss the challenges and realities of being female-bodied in a space without male-bodied people are being told even that is not a reasonable and proportionate reason, and having to go to court at their own expense to prove it is a reasonable thing to do.

As female people all over the world can tell you, a "right" or opportunity that is in theory open to you but society makes it impossible for you to take up is no right at all.

And honestly, I struggle to think of any single "gender" scenario where the fundamental reason for exclusion would be gender rather than sex.

Typically single sex spaces exist to counteract the encroachment of male-bodied people over female, and single sex opportunities exist to counteract the sexist social construction of society. Both of these are predicated on sex not gender.

I really can't see why any of the single-sex provisions we have today would have come into being had gender and not sex been the motivating factor. In fact, I'd even say that any such setup is likely to unfairly exclude non-trans males because I simply cannot conceive of a need shared by all "women" (in the gender identity sense) and no men that could meet the legitimate and proportionate test.

But then, I think the only difference between men and women is the fact of our sexed bodies. Any social differences flow from that either as legitimate differences in physical capabilities or constraints that need to be accommodated, or as sexist constructions that, while potentially giving rise to single sex needs in the short term, fundamentally need to be challenged and dismantled not solidified as meaningful in their own right.

Perhaps @DadJoke can give examples of some gender-based differences between men and women that would be legimate and proportionate reasons for exclusion of the basis of gender?

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

I disagree that the default is inclusion and would argue that in the case of sex-based rights the default is exclusion and that inclusion needs to be justified. The clue is in the term "sex-based".

Perhaps @DadJoke can give examples of some gender-based differences between men and women that would be legimate and proportionate reasons for exclusion of the basis of gender?

That is a really interesting question. How could you exclude on the basis of gender? I don't know and am looking forward to hearing the response.

I disagree that the default is inclusion and would argue that in the case of sex-based rights the default is exclusion and that inclusion needs to be justified.

Well put.

With the first justification being: the inclusion of a male person will not actively or potentially exclude any females from the group, resource, space or service who are unable to share a mixed sex space. And the second that it does not change or alter the core purpose of a group, service or resource to be less useful to or focused upon female users, when it was formed to meet a female specific need. The third should be that no other space, service or resource exists for the male user that provides mixed sex provisions.

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

Yes, and privacy, dignity and safety are objective grounds, and are the reason any males can be excluded.

ErrolTheDragon

The bit on pronunciation left most of us none the wiser. However, in the one context where Cis- is commonly used nowadays ie chemistry, it's pronounced 'sis'. So I'd have said that's it's accepted pronunciation in modern English regardless of what may be the case in Latin itself.

Sorry!

The point is that the classical pronunciation of the initial consonant would have been a hard sound, as in kitten.

I don't generally think there's any point in bellyaching over pronunciation changes in loan-words as they get established in the English language, but I make an exception when any term gets frequently used with "it's Latin/French" as its main justification for usage. If you're trading on a word being from another language (perhaps because that language has intellectual connotations in our culture...), then damn well use authentic pronunciation then. Don't pick and choose.

Important addendum: don't use it about other people without their consent just because you want to use it or they may tell you to Foxtrot Oscar

Indeed. It's based on a framework I don't believe in. The only way I will accept the word simply means "not trans" is if a "trans woman" is a female person who identifies as a man. Not the other way round, because I don't believe in gender identity ideology and I'm not going to accept that males can be a type of women. Category error.

@Artichokeleaves

I disagree that the default is inclusion and would argue that in the case of sex-based rights the default is exclusion and that inclusion needs to be justified.

Well put.

With the first justification being: the inclusion of a male person will not actively or potentially exclude any females from the group, resource, space or service who are unable to share a mixed sex space. And the second that it does not change or alter the core purpose of a group, service or resource to be less useful to or focused upon female users, when it was formed to meet a female specific need. The third should be that no other space, service or resource exists for the male user that provides mixed sex provisions.

It's not been tested in the courts much. AEA vs EHRC was an attempt to establish that the EHRC guidance on this issue was not correct, as it "failed in law."

The default in law is inclusion, and exclusion requires "legitimate and proportionate" reasons.

Any organisation which wants to make the case for same-sex exemptions can do so. It's a very high bar. Obviously, a group for pregnant people or a cervical cancer support group is exempt.

Most women's domestic violence shelters support trans women and have done for many years. I don't know of any organisations with single-sex bathrooms which have banned transgender people though I am happy to be proved wrong. I think there would be a strong case that it's not legitimate and proportionate.

@Ereshkigalangcleg I don't know of any case law which establishes that women's dignity, privacy or safety are undermined by the mere presence of trans individuals.

The EHRC guidance says:

"If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment"

(Gender reassignment incorporates all transgender individuals).

I don't know of any case law which establishes that women's dignity, privacy or safety are undermined by the mere presence of trans individuals.

It has nothing to do with individuals being trans. There is plenty of evidence that women's dignity, privacy and safety are undermined by male individuals. I'm sure there is case law, but even if there isn't, it is the reason we have any single sex spaces at all and clearly provided for in equality law.

If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment"

"Very restricted circumstances" is not part of the law, this is scope creep. They've changed some of their guidance in response to feminist campaigning. They've also acknowledged that males without GRC are all male for the purpose of the protected characteristic of sex. But the fact that they are institutionally captured is well known. Here's to more sunlight in the media, starting with the brilliant Nolan reporting.

(Gender reassignment incorporates all transgender individuals).

No.

Obviously, a group for pregnant people

Why should they be exempt, by your logic? "Pregnant people" and cervical cancer sufferers are women, all of them. Thanks for acknowledging that.

I don't know of any case law which establishes that women's dignity, privacy or safety are undermined by the mere presence of trans individuals.

Case law, eh?

Because some mere women saying it could never be good enough on its own.

There are multiple contexts in which it is known to all except the ideologically blinded that some women will self-exclude, i.e. be driven away, if adult male humans are also there. Refuges, rape counselling services, swimming sessions and so on.

If I want to welcome those women, males must be excluded. I do not need "case law" to prove to me that those women exist. Talking to them myself is quite sufficient for me to be aware of their existence, on account of me not being a raging misogynist.

Because some mere women saying it could never be good enough on its own.

There are multiple contexts in which it is known to all except the ideologically blinded that some women will self-exclude, i.e. be driven away, if adult male humans are also there. Refuges, rape counselling services, swimming sessions and so on.

YY. And for the record, plenty of refuges and rape counselling services do provide a different service to males than they do for women, because of the risk of the women they are set up to help self excluding. Lisa Townsend, Surrey PCC made a very moving statement about women in the sector she had spoken to. How dare male people of whatever gender identity presume to speak over them.

Because some mere women saying it could never be good enough on its own.

That bit always gets me too.

Females: this is a female only space, it needs to include all females, we wish to set our own boundaries here for our own needs as a sex class.

Males: hmm. We must hold a poll, an inquiry or check research to ascertain the objective validity of your claims and then we will see whether or not we grant you permission for your 'boundaries'.

Females: Thank you for sharing that example of why women need single sex provision: because male people have this massive issue in seeing them as equal and competent humans.

Males: You're not being very ladylike in your stridency about all this which makes us less inclined to listen to and grant your requests.

Females: ffs.......

The testimony of any female people about their experiences must be independently corroborated by some male people neutral observers.

I asked my husband about that - he agrees

Who's for a sandwich of bombay duck and prarie oysters between two slices of sweetbread, with a sea cucumber salad on the side?

You can call things whatever you want, it doesn't make them that thing.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

(Gender reassignment incorporates all transgender individuals).

No.

Yes.

"In the Equality Act it is known as gender reassignment. All transsexual people share the common characteristic of gender reassignment.

To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.

You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it. "

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

I don't know of any case law which establishes that women's dignity, privacy or safety are undermined by the mere presence of trans individuals.

Case law, eh?

Because some mere women saying it could never be good enough on its own.

There are multiple contexts in which it is known to all except the ideologically blinded that some women will self-exclude, i.e. be driven away, if adult male humans are also there. Refuges, rape counselling services, swimming sessions and so on.

If I want to welcome those women, males must be excluded. I do not need "case law" to prove to me that those women exist. Talking to them myself is quite sufficient for me to be aware of their existence, on account of me not being a raging misogynist.

We were talking about the law. So, no "people saying things" does not establish what the law is.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Obviously, a group for pregnant people

Why should they be exempt, by your logic? "Pregnant people" and cervical cancer sufferers are women, all of them. Thanks for acknowledging that.

No, because trans men are not women, and they can get pregnant.

Transmen may not want to be women, yet they are.

Your distortions of language and biology make no coherent sense.