Would you help me with an "inclusive language" doc for work?

[catgirl1976]

I've been asked to review an "inclusive language" document for work.

I was dreading it but actually it was really well written and sensible and I am happy to approve it (My department hasn't written it but I've been asked to sign it off with my department's approval if that makes sense)

There is only one thing I want to change and that is it suggest "cis" as an inclusive word

I want to go back saying all good but remove "cis" as it is controversial and offensive to many especially those with gender critical and / or feminist views. I'd like to link to some articles as I think the Head of Dept who has authored this will be unaware why it is offensive to so many people (including me)

Would anyone be kind enough to link me to any opinion pieces from fairly reputable sources or organisations I could use to back this up?

Thank you in advance :)

OP - you'd probably get an answer on the other board ?

Oh -thank you. chat or Aibu do you mean?

You’re right. CIA is offensive.

Cis!!

Maybe the CIA invented cis 🤣❤️

@catgirl1976

Oh -thank you. chat or Aibu do you mean?

The other feminism one - sex and gender debate or whatever it's called

Thank you 🙏. I’ve asked HQ to move it

I personally find “cis” offensive. I don’t know if arguing offensive will help though. Depending on the organisation, arguing that it’s unhelpful might be more effective though.
Think about your organisation. Is everyone young, with a recent university education and English as a first language? If not, using “cis” might not actually be very inclusive.

OneEpisode has it i think - outside very small circles 'cis' is unknown and confusing. Presenters on TV and radio always ask people to explain it if they use it.

Yes this is the thing. I don’t want to make it look just lie I’m offended so want it out I want to show that it’s quite common for people to find it offensive.

In demographic terms the organisation is very white (due to the area) and with less than 10% under 30 so abs older demographic but we work with younger people (FE)

What if you went low key? If I was reviewing a document like this I'd either:

1. Delete without comment if e.g. one item in a list.
2. Delete with fairly mild comment e.g. "would not recommend this, controversial term which some groups find inclusive and others offensive - suggest excluding for ease - if you wish to keep this in let me know and we can discuss"

Obviously you could go in with articles etc, but that sort of suggests that deleting it Is a big deal, whereas the above minimise its significance, which is always my preference where there are controversial issues. I wouldn't want to end up having a full discussion about GC beliefs at work just because perceptions can be so difficult to manage.

The latter would be if either just deleting wouldn't work (e.g. not the done thing, in my org you'd do that with tracked changes on) , or if It had a section about how it was inclusive.

To me Cis reduces women to a subset of being a woman. That clearly cannot be true because being a woman is the requirement for being classed as a woman.

I like the low key idea actually and just putting in a "recommend delete for ease" as you described by @Nacreous

I think you are right putting loads of evidence and links does make it a big deal rather than just a normal comment.

You can always gather that information to have anyway, but I much prefer keeping things calm and not having a fight when necessary - going round not through. I'd have it in my back pocket though.

I would be saying that 'cis' doesn't work if we're trying to be inclusive, because it assumes the gender identity of others and presupposes that all people who haven't actively and loudly asserted that they are trans are by definition happy with the gender that society has assumed they have based on their sex.

Using the word 'cis' also puts pressure on people to out themselves and declare their gender (or lack thereof) when they would otherwise have preferred not to make such decision or declaration, because using 'cis' to describe everyone who hasn't actively come out as trans assumes that all of the people who are silent about their own gender are a homogeneous group and that they all experience gender in a similar way. Which is simply not how gender works, according to the trans organisations seeking to educate us on gender. Therefore, by using the descriptor 'cis', a person risks misgendering a large number of people in the group they're referring to.

'Cis' as a gender descriptor is frequently used to label others, and is often used in a pejorative sense to call out privilege and silence others. In an inclusive world where a person's gender identity (as experienced by them) should not be assumed, the term 'cis' as a descriptor is not only not inclusive, but likely to be divisive and inflammatory.

'Cis' is also discriminatory on the basis of sex, as it presupposes that men and women who have not declared themselves as trans (for whatever reason) are by definition comfortable having the gender stereotypes associated with their sex being placed on them. Gender stereotypes harm everyone, so the notion that anyone who has not claimed a gender identity is therefore happy with the gender stereotypes associated with their sex is deeply offensive and sexist.

It is currently unclear whether "cis" means someone who is not transgender or whether it means someone who actively identifies as having a gender identity that may be perceived by some as "matching" their sex [which itself presupposes that internal gender identity has some overlap with physical sex, which is debateable and potentially offensive...]

@LonginesPrime

I would be saying that 'cis' doesn't work if we're trying to be inclusive, because it assumes the gender identity of others and presupposes that all people who haven't actively and loudly asserted that they are trans are by definition happy with the gender that society has assumed they have based on their sex.

Using the word 'cis' also puts pressure on people to out themselves and declare their gender (or lack thereof) when they would otherwise have preferred not to make such decision or declaration, because using 'cis' to describe everyone who hasn't actively come out as trans assumes that all of the people who are silent about their own gender are a homogeneous group and that they all experience gender in a similar way. Which is simply not how gender works, according to the trans organisations seeking to educate us on gender. Therefore, by using the descriptor 'cis', a person risks misgendering a large number of people in the group they're referring to.

'Cis' as a gender descriptor is frequently used to label others, and is often used in a pejorative sense to call out privilege and silence others. In an inclusive world where a person's gender identity (as experienced by them) should not be assumed, the term 'cis' as a descriptor is not only not inclusive, but likely to be divisive and inflammatory.

'Cis' is also discriminatory on the basis of sex, as it presupposes that men and women who have not declared themselves as trans (for whatever reason) are by definition comfortable having the gender stereotypes associated with their sex being placed on them. Gender stereotypes harm everyone, so the notion that anyone who has not claimed a gender identity is therefore happy with the gender stereotypes associated with their sex is deeply offensive and sexist.

This

I’m going to go with the bland response and recommendation to review but this is all really helpful if I get push back

Thank you 🙏

@MrsPnut

To me Cis reduces women to a subset of being a woman. That clearly cannot be true because being a woman is the requirement for being classed as a woman.

Precisely.

I think this is a pretty decent article, written by a transwoman who says in this essay that they won't ever use the word 'cis' and why.

genderapostates.com/cissexism-and-you/

Glad you got such good advice OP.

Most people don't know what CIS means nor understand its logic/derivation once they are told. It is the preferred language of Gender Ideology and therefore definitely not inclusive. I am not a 'cis woman', I am a woman or at a pinch a natal woman.

It sounds bloody teenage also.

Hey bro, hey cis.

Like text/Twitter speak has taken over. That doesn’t look professional.

@LonginesPrime

I would be saying that 'cis' doesn't work if we're trying to be inclusive, because it assumes the gender identity of others and presupposes that all people who haven't actively and loudly asserted that they are trans are by definition happy with the gender that society has assumed they have based on their sex.

Using the word 'cis' also puts pressure on people to out themselves and declare their gender (or lack thereof) when they would otherwise have preferred not to make such decision or declaration, because using 'cis' to describe everyone who hasn't actively come out as trans assumes that all of the people who are silent about their own gender are a homogeneous group and that they all experience gender in a similar way. Which is simply not how gender works, according to the trans organisations seeking to educate us on gender. Therefore, by using the descriptor 'cis', a person risks misgendering a large number of people in the group they're referring to.

'Cis' as a gender descriptor is frequently used to label others, and is often used in a pejorative sense to call out privilege and silence others. In an inclusive world where a person's gender identity (as experienced by them) should not be assumed, the term 'cis' as a descriptor is not only not inclusive, but likely to be divisive and inflammatory.

'Cis' is also discriminatory on the basis of sex, as it presupposes that men and women who have not declared themselves as trans (for whatever reason) are by definition comfortable having the gender stereotypes associated with their sex being placed on them. Gender stereotypes harm everyone, so the notion that anyone who has not claimed a gender identity is therefore happy with the gender stereotypes associated with their sex is deeply offensive and sexist.

Another vote for this.

Thank you, LonginesPrime: you've articulated beautifully and clearly what I've just been thrashing around trying to word.