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 :)

Thanks PerkingFaintly - appreciate that!

I'm wondering a bit about the rest of the document, OP.

Does it mention elsewhere, perhaps, that if only one sex is involved (say, in maternity or menopause policies) that the words 'woman' and 'mother' etc are totally correct and appropriate?

I they are suggesting 'cis' I'd doubt that this was the only issue with the doc??

Is the term “cis man” a thing?
Never seen it used?

@Mybalconyiscracking

Is the term “cis man” a thing? Never seen it used?

Yeah. Woke bros use it all the time; "As a straight, white cis-man, I don't really get to have an opinion on this....." ......... proceeds to give you their opinion and tell you all the ways in which you are wrong.

Just want to add my voice here that I agree with what everybody above says. At best, "cis" only makes sense in the context of having a gender identity. At worst, it assumes a level of acceptance of sexist stereotypes, and that's definitely offensive.

Also, @WhereYouLeftIt, thanks for that link, this is a really interesting site.

I've gone back with the mild "whilst cis an be seen as inclusive for some groups, for others it can be exclusive and offensive - suggest removing for ease"

I've had back that there's a key message of "things are only offensive if we don't ask and don't listen" within the guidance which should mitigate any concerns and "we are too far along the line to change things now - perhaps for the next review we could look at removing"

They've come back and said would you prefer "non-transgender". I have said no I don't like that either. They are concerned if CIS is not described people will not know what it means.

I have suggested a compromise where they note (as they have done with the word "queer" earlier in the guidance) that whilst some people are identify as or are happy to be referred to as "cis" it should be used with caution when describing others as some people (particularly feminists or those with gender critical views) find it exclusive and / or offensive.

What's the point in asking you to review if it's too late to make changes?

What a waste of your time if that's the case.

The majority of people have no idea what "cis" refers to (aside from chemists familiar with stereo-isomerism) - use of the word unknown to most makes for unclear documentation, which tends to be considered bad practice.

"things are only offensive if we don't ask and don't listen"

Weird message, they have asked, you said it was offensive, they refuse to change it,

Glad I don't have to do your job OP.

Isn’t non transgender the equivalent of a double negative? Trans is a signifier that the person isn’t the gender typically associated with their sex, so it’s already a ‘negative’ prefix, so non and trans would just cancel each other out and it would become gender. Which in terms of how it’s meant to be used in this type of documentation means woman or man.

And re offensive, with regards to inclusive language, are all the slurs considered unmentionable just offensive because people don’t listen to them? That sound bite has no logic and in itself isn’t inclusive of many peoples experience of prejudice, discrimination or oppression. Ask if they’d tell poc that they are only offended by racial slurs because they aren’t listening?

I work in FE. I would be a bit more blunt. It is offensive to many women (and men), it is unclear what it means; and once it is explained, it is still offensive. The demographics of FE students are often the less educated or literate, and also many students with EAL (depending on location). Many mature students. This is not plain, easily, commonly understood English, and is unnecessary. 'Non-transgender' is just ridiculous. This has to be pushed back against. We have the law and the EHRC on our side now.

@catgirl1976

I've gone back with the mild "whilst cis an be seen as inclusive for some groups, for others it can be exclusive and offensive - suggest removing for ease"

I've had back that there's a key message of "things are only offensive if we don't ask and don't listen" within the guidance which should mitigate any concerns and "we are too far along the line to change things now - perhaps for the next review we could look at removing"

Sounds like you're working with idiots OP, feel for you.

RE not enough time... find all, replace with nothing. 5 second job, done. It's a non-argument

@MonsignorMirth

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...]

It's not unclear at all. Cis means someone who is not trans. That's it.

OP, if you suggest the removal of the word, you'd probably better be prepared to offer an alternative and equally clear and simple way to refer to people who aren't trans.

I think that using plain English is one of the most important inclusive language principles. Most of the population have a reading age of 12 (or something) - it’s not inclusive to include complicated language.

www.plainenglish.co.uk

It was indeed a complete waste of my time asking me to review it. They will raise my concerns though so we will see.

@BlueberryCheezecake I disagree. I am not trans but I am not "cis". You are assuming as a pp eloquently said that because I am not trans I am happy with or adhere to the social stereotypes attributed to me because of my sex. I do not and I am not.

@Charley50

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk

I wonder if they've been 'Stonewalled'?

I think I would say that the word 'cis' implies a belief in a gender identity, and that like, other personal beliefs, it is a label that some people may choose for themselves but that it is deeply inappropriate to apply it to anyone without their consent.

Ah sorry op, I missed your latest updates.

It's not unclear at all. Cis means someone who is not trans. That's it.

BlueberryCheezecake

It's unclear, because other people have said the other definition. What/who is the definitive source for this definition?

Cis wouldn't be needed at all if we could stick to sex based words. I'm a woman. My friend C, a woman who has transitioned to live as a man, is a trans woman. Elliot Page is a trans woman. Caitlin Jenner is a trans man. Graham Norton is a man. If only people wanted to use language clearly to communicate reality.

It's not unclear at all. Cis means someone who is not trans. That's it.

'Cis' is short for cisgender. The very definition depends on a belief in gender identity for its construction. Therefore, it describes nothing without acceptance of gender ideology.

And the word 'cis' means 'on this side', relative to 'trans' meaning 'across' or, in this context, 'on the other side' (i.e. one's gender is 'on this side' or the 'opposite' side of biological sex).

So yes, if you use 'cis' in the context of 'trans' or 'not trans', I can see why you would see it as simply meaning 'not trans', but if you do this, you would be ignoring the fact that not everyone is either 'cis' or 'trans' - there is a large number of people in the world who reject this understanding of gender identity because it doesn't accord with their lived experience of gender and who therefore aren't caught by either 'trans' or 'cis'.

So it isn't inclusive to use 'cis' to mean 'not trans' as lots of people are excluded and marginalised by this definition.

Many people experience gender in a way that is not adequately described by 'cis' or 'trans' and it harms them to push a narrative onto them that ignores their lived experiences and describes them in relation to what people outside of their group assume they experience, purely on the basis that they think that's what it looks like from the outside.

The impression I get of people who use the term 'cis' is that they've listened to some people who don't identify as trans (for all sorts of reasons) but have mistakenly assumed that those people experience gender in exactly the same way as all other people who appear to be the same as them. I view people who use the term 'cis' as bigoted and hypocritical, because their use of the term requires an assumption of other people's gender identities while at the same time preaching that everyone should be free to dictate their own gender identity according to their personal lived experience and that misgendering other people is offensive and disrespectful.

It's like the when a toddler first learns the word 'cat' and then mistakenly understands everything else to be 'not cat', until they have more life experience and have learned enough about the world to understand that actually, this is a dog, and this is a bird, and this is a capybara. And they keep learning all these new animals throughout their life as their worldview expands. Vets manage to write articles about cats without referring to dogs and birds as 'non-cats' throughout, so I find the claim that intelligent adults can't adequately describe the trans experience without referring to everyone else by defining them as 'non-trans' as utterly bizarre.

It's not unclear at all. Cis means someone who is not trans. That's it.

No it doesn't, because I don't subscribe to your belief system. If you simply want it to mean "not trans", then it will only work if a "trans man" means an MTF trans person, and a "trans woman" is an FTM trans person. Otherwise, no.