Page 14 | Is CIS a legal term?

purpleboy · 2022-07-11T11:01:18+00:00

So I had a conversation with a friend the other day who is adamant Cis is an accurate descriptor of women and that it is written into law? I asked where but she couldn't specify just stating it's a factual term (referencing women) that is legally recognized. I've had a look and can't seem to find anything to back this up, but I know the wise women here will know if there is any truth to this. Thanks in advance.

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 18:08

najene · 12/07/2022 09:38

Some examples.

My own children. I often told them (and others) the truth about themselves when they were mistaken about the world and their place in it. Often it caused them pain and distress. They got over it. That's part of a parent's job.

I had a friend/colleague with a bad drinking problem. She used to ring me up late at night. "You're drunk," I'd say. "No I'm not," she'd reply, "It's really hurtful for you to say that." I knew I was being hurtful. Was I wrong to tell her the truth? Now she's happy I did. (She still has a drink problem. Always will.)

Another friend with mental health issues, exacerbated though not caused by psychotropic recreational drugs. I explained to him on more than one occasion that, no, he was not an alien sent from another planet. "But you're attacking my truth!" Sure enough. I was. Telling him the truth hurt. He was my friend, though. Friends tell each other the truth, when push comes to shove.

As a union rep, I sometimes had to explain to colleagues I was representing against management that - although of course I was on the colleague's side - actually management was right and they weren't really pulling their weight in some aspect of their job, so we needed to deal with this. Always hard to accept truth like that, painful indeed. But, again, necessary in some circumstances? I think so.

... There are lots of other possible scenarios.

"Does my bum look big in this?" - "Erh, well ..."

"I'm more than pulling my weight in this relationship."- "Well, actually ..."

"I'm the reincarnation of a Princess of Egypt ..." (Response left as an exercise.)

It's true some soi-disant trans people are psychologically delicate and easily hurt. Perhaps, just perhaps, it might, ceteris paribus as it were, be better for them if we were to tiptoe around the truth about human biology etc.

But other things are determinedly not equal: some self-styled trans people are vicious narcissists. And of course there are grades in between. And, moreover, societal mores and legal matters also depend on the 'truth vs lies' discourse here.

So, all-in-all, Tell the truth and shame the devil! applies, I'm afraid. Sorry about your trans friend. But, well, she is by no means as unique as you claimed. Does that help? Maybe?

Show quote history

"Sorry about your trans friend. But, well, she is by no means as unique as you claimed. Does that help? Maybe?" He.

And i never said or claimed he was unique, or anything of the sort.

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:17

Artichokeleaves · 11/07/2022 19:33

My transman friend is upset by the fact that people say things that eradicate his identity

If your friend is upset and feels 'eradicated' because people say no to your friend applying to them words, concepts and politics they don't choose and disagree with? And that your friend's identity can only exist if others enable and comply with your friend in the way your friend wishes?

Your friend is upset by a failure to control other people. The negative behaviour is not on the side of the people saying no. The only person your friend is entitled to control and choose words and labels and concepts for is themselves. Their power ends there.

The emotional coercion of all this is really quite plain. The answer is no.

Yes. This.

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:27

the "humans cant change sex" debacle what you are effectively saying is trans isn't a thing, and you know it.

I keep thinking that some posters are very keen to narrowly define trans people and still believe they are righteous.

We know there are many trans people who absolutely know they cannot change sex. They publicly state it. We are constantly told by trans activists, not all trans activities are trans people of course, that trans people are not denying their biological sex.

Maybe it is clear to readers that there is an extreme trans activist group who do deny the statement ‘trans people cannot change sex’? Or maybe some people choose to ignore those trans people that inconveniently don’t fit their narrow definition of ‘trans’?

Either way, it seems we are again either seeing some people forcibly attribute beliefs to all trans people (which is ignoring some, maybe even the majority as we have no evidence otherwise, trans people’s true belief and understanding about themselves) or, we are seeing some people recategorise trans people to exclude those trans people who understand and publicly say they understand humans cannot change sex. Or both.

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 18:38

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:17

Yes. This.

Show quote history

It just sums you up that you've requoted the one post you know i found offensive yesterday. Our engagement stops here.

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:39

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:27

the "humans cant change sex" debacle what you are effectively saying is trans isn't a thing, and you know it.

I keep thinking that some posters are very keen to narrowly define trans people and still believe they are righteous.

We know there are many trans people who absolutely know they cannot change sex. They publicly state it. We are constantly told by trans activists, not all trans activities are trans people of course, that trans people are not denying their biological sex.

Maybe it is clear to readers that there is an extreme trans activist group who do deny the statement ‘trans people cannot change sex’? Or maybe some people choose to ignore those trans people that inconveniently don’t fit their narrow definition of ‘trans’?

Either way, it seems we are again either seeing some people forcibly attribute beliefs to all trans people (which is ignoring some, maybe even the majority as we have no evidence otherwise, trans people’s true belief and understanding about themselves) or, we are seeing some people recategorise trans people to exclude those trans people who understand and publicly say they understand humans cannot change sex. Or both.

Or apologies if I have misread it and we are being told that trans people may or may not believe they can change sex, but everyone must act as if they can change sex in every aspect of life to protect them.

Because, that is coercion.

Or has there been a disconnect on what the term coercion means on MN? Has the meaning of ‘coercion’ been destabilised as well?

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:48

It just sums you up that you've requoted the one post you know i found offensive yesterday. Our engagement stops here.

I thought ‘our’ engagement stopped threads ago. However, this is not your thread and you are free to engage with whoever you like.

You are posting on a public forum and what you post can be analysed, interpreted, questioned and interacted with by anyone signed up on this forum. As long as it is within the guidelines.

However, I agree with the post I interacted with, hence my post. I agree that there seems to be coercion at play by some people to control other people’s language. And that it often takes form of emotional manipulation.

Your engagement with me or not, doesn’t change the fact I agree with artichoke and please do feel free to scroll on past all my posts.

najene · 12/07/2022 18:49

beautyisthefaceisee:
"And i never said or claimed he was unique, or anything of the sort."

I think maybe you misunderstood; probably me being unclear. I will try to explain.

You said, "Only for one group of people. I bet you can't give me an example of any other time you behave/speak like that about people."

It was the "one group of people" made me mention being 'unique'. I gave examples of lots of other (groups of) people we might behave towards or speak like that about (sc. hurting their feelings in telling the truth). I wondered if perhaps your friend might feel less upset to know lots of others are (quite reasonably, I suggest) told the truth even though it might upset them.

Does that make sense now?

As for 'he' and 'she': Long ago I and some others adopted the habit of using 'she' in the way we had been told other authors used 'he' - as a generic referring pronoun neutral regarding the sex of its referent. This was a small move to redress the balance of 'he' referring to a generic scientist, say, or philosopher, whatever: "If you ask a scientist, he will ..., " or "As for any philosopher in the Western tradition, if he thinks that ..." ... No, we thought, if we need a neutral pronoun, let's use 'she'. And we did.

This was a small (not to say tiny) feminist move of long ago. It still survives in some of our published writings.

With this in mind, I am sorry to say I had not really taken note of the sex of your friend. Perhaps this was remiss of me, but anyway my 'she' was by way of an attempt to be neutral in this minor feminist way rather than as an explicit engagement in the pronoun war. (Of course you and I will take opposite sides in that conflict too. But, well, one thing at a time, hein?)

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:54

It just sums you up that you've requoted the one post you know i found offensive yesterday. Our engagement stops here.

By the way, I am busy and in a completely different time zone so I have dipped in and out of threads on MN lately. So, as I have not responded to nested quotes, I had no idea who wrote what. I decided to go back a couple of pages and read forward.

Either way, isn’t it presumptuous to think that my response to that post had anything to do with you?

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 18:58

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 18:54

It just sums you up that you've requoted the one post you know i found offensive yesterday. Our engagement stops here.

By the way, I am busy and in a completely different time zone so I have dipped in and out of threads on MN lately. So, as I have not responded to nested quotes, I had no idea who wrote what. I decided to go back a couple of pages and read forward.

Either way, isn’t it presumptuous to think that my response to that post had anything to do with you?

It was my post, quoted, so yes it is to do with me.

I don't believe for a second yo udidnt read the interaction about it offending me yesterday.

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 19:06

You can believe what you want.

It is not a nested quote. It is copy and pasted. The post sits at the top of page 12. I had no idea who posted the statement cut and pasted there.

Frankly, your quote in that post is irrelevant to my appreciation of artichokes words. I was appreciating the post about the coercive nature of language being controlled by emotional manipulation.

Why would I post otherwise? What motivation are you now attributing to me?

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 19:08

Or should I not be posting my agreement with posts in case I offend another poster? Are we at that position now too?

So, we must control our speech for risk of offense and we must control our agreement with posts in the same way? And this is not coercive how?

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 19:18

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 19:06

You can believe what you want.

It is not a nested quote. It is copy and pasted. The post sits at the top of page 12. I had no idea who posted the statement cut and pasted there.

Frankly, your quote in that post is irrelevant to my appreciation of artichokes words. I was appreciating the post about the coercive nature of language being controlled by emotional manipulation.

Why would I post otherwise? What motivation are you now attributing to me?

You were appreciating the post that a page ago I said was really hurtful and offensive to me due to its personal nature.

Sticking the boot in, for want of a better word. Like I said, my engagement with Artichoke was over when she wrote it and its over with you for promoting it and cheering it on.

Headbandheart · 12/07/2022 19:19

Cis is a term used by men who think that being a women is about performing to gender stereotypes. I will fight against someone saying that about me. I’m 60 and not about to start to conform with someone else’s bigoted view of what a women should look like, think, be interested in, be “good at” . I thought that’s what feminist fought against back in 60s and 70s. We momentarily got there in about 1980 and now the men are deciding to put us back in their little boxes.

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 19:27

You were appreciating the post that a page ago I said was really hurtful and offensive to me due to its personal nature.

Sticking the boot in, for want of a better word. Like I said, my engagement with Artichoke was over when she wrote it and its over with you for promoting it and cheering it on.

Again, I started at page 12 and that is the very first post I read. I then immediately posted my agreement with it.

It may pain you to hear, but I agree with the substance of artichoke’s words, even if it offends you.

Sadly, you don’t have any control on a public forum about who posts, when and how they post.

lovelyweathertoday · 12/07/2022 19:27

I don't believe for a second yo udidnt read the interaction about it offending me yesterday.

You seem to think that having uttered the magic words "I am very offended" that the conversation has ended, as no-one would be so crass as to have views that offend you.

Maybe explain what you object to, or try to understand what point the other person was trying to make. It's an important life skill.

DialSquare · 12/07/2022 19:37

I'm reminded of this quote.

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 19:38

lovelyweathertoday · 12/07/2022 19:27

I don't believe for a second yo udidnt read the interaction about it offending me yesterday.

You seem to think that having uttered the magic words "I am very offended" that the conversation has ended, as no-one would be so crass as to have views that offend you.

Maybe explain what you object to, or try to understand what point the other person was trying to make. It's an important life skill.

I didnt say the conversation should end. but reposting and agreeing with a post which was quite offensive to me personally is something I'm not goign to engage with. And if Artichoke or PPdont understand why it was offensive, theyre not people I'm remotely interested in speaking to.

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 19:38

DialSquare · 12/07/2022 19:37

I'm reminded of this quote.

By all the PP on here claiming cisgender is offensive? Yes, that fits

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 19:38

Helleofabore · 12/07/2022 19:27

You were appreciating the post that a page ago I said was really hurtful and offensive to me due to its personal nature.

Sticking the boot in, for want of a better word. Like I said, my engagement with Artichoke was over when she wrote it and its over with you for promoting it and cheering it on.

Again, I started at page 12 and that is the very first post I read. I then immediately posted my agreement with it.

It may pain you to hear, but I agree with the substance of artichoke’s words, even if it offends you.

Sadly, you don’t have any control on a public forum about who posts, when and how they post.

Great. You carry on agreeing, and I'll carry on ceasing to engage with both of you. I think that's a fair deal.

lovelyweathertoday · 12/07/2022 20:04

By all the PP on here claiming cisgender is offensive? Yes, that fits

I find cisgender an offensive descriptor because:

It's usually inaccurate. Surely practically no-one's self identify matches the gendered expectations of society.

It's involuntary. It's used to describe anyone "non-trans", whether they use it themselves or not.

It forces anyone who is not trans to define themselves in terms of gender ideology, whether the believe this religion or not.

It's completely unnecessary. I am a woman without a gender identity.

You can keep using language that I find offensive if you like, it's irrelevant to me, my self-esteem is not based on your religious beliefs, you may as well call me a heretic.

beautyisthefaceisee · 12/07/2022 20:06

lovelyweathertoday · 12/07/2022 20:04

By all the PP on here claiming cisgender is offensive? Yes, that fits

I find cisgender an offensive descriptor because:

It's usually inaccurate. Surely practically no-one's self identify matches the gendered expectations of society.

It's involuntary. It's used to describe anyone "non-trans", whether they use it themselves or not.

It forces anyone who is not trans to define themselves in terms of gender ideology, whether the believe this religion or not.

It's completely unnecessary. I am a woman without a gender identity.

You can keep using language that I find offensive if you like, it's irrelevant to me, my self-esteem is not based on your religious beliefs, you may as well call me a heretic.

I didnt actually mean it literally.

I was referring to the PP who used a quote about "If you are fucking offended, so what" to refer to me being genuinely upset by a personal comment towards someone i love, on a thread about people being offended by a word.

DialSquare · 12/07/2022 20:10

By all the PP on here claiming cisgender is offensive? Yes, that fits

Was I one of them? No I wasn't. I personally don't find it offensive. It's a nonsense term and is totally unnecessary. Women are not a subset of their own sex. You on the other hand are offended that people won't lie about your friend.

Winederlust · 12/07/2022 20:13

Madhairday · 11/07/2022 23:14

The Christian equivalence is interesting. I'm a Christian and have been around MN for years, on many threads where I've been mocked and derided about my imaginary skyfairy friend etc etc, told I must be of low intelligence. My very identity has been under attack, because my identity is wrapped up with my faith.

Now I have also had great interactions with people who don't believe - respectful, even funny (I remember @ErrolTheDragon from this thread for some of these.) I've been gently challenged and asked to provide evidence for any claims I wish to make. All fair enough.

Now I could easily say that these interactions - both unthoughtful attacks and thoughtful, educated challenges - are attacks on my identity and they erode it. I could then say that everyone should just stop making any negative comments at all about my faith - but more than that, they should start to make my faith claims for themselves. They should recite the Nicene Creed and mean every word, because if they don't do that it's mean to me and erodes my identity.

I could ask for those things. I could try to make sure that if people do not do these things they are torn down as heretics - and this happened in the past, to every thoughtful Christian's dismay, just as we are dismayed at some of the stuff happening in the US under the Christian right (ugh).

So I see the equivalence, because here we are seeing the formation of a new religion, a new forced creed, a new witch-hunt, and feminists are the big nasty witches who do not comply.

I do not want anyone to forcibly believe my faith. It goes against everything I believe. I do not want anyone to have to partake in anything to do with my faith if they do not want to (and yes, I've observed all the issues with faith schools, HOL etc.) I believe in free speech and freedom of choice for belief, and what we have here is a system that forces people to bend the knee to a belief system they don't believe in. For me, then , cis is not just a word, but the tip of an iceberg.

And I will not comply.

I am sorry your friend feels sad when he hears those words. I feel sad when people mock my faith too. But I can take it because other people's opinions do not shake that faith.

Excellent post Madhairday.

People with religious faith generally do not think that atheists claiming that God doesn't exist is eradicating their identity as their identity is based on their own faith and not on the validation of others.

If anyone thinks he's dim enough to believe he literally can change sex - well, thats on them.

Then I don't understand why he offended by people stating the fact the he himself acknowledges is a fact?

tobee · 12/07/2022 20:16

It's always fun to see posters stomping off with "I'm out!" And then returning. And "I'm not engaging with you anymore " and then coming back immediately engage again

ErrolTheDragon · 12/07/2022 20:20

on a thread about people being offended by a word.

If that's what anyone thinks this thread is actually about they're not really paying attention to other posters.