Is CIS a legal term?

[purpleboy]

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.

Yes Errol. I think it is a very simplistic view of what this thread is about.

No, I'm upset that people are downright spiteful.

I'm out.

winederlust

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

Yes. Either there is some great hypocrisy at play, or we are being emotionally manipulated to use language to dishonestly convey support someone’s belief that is not something they actually even believe. We are being told again that trans people don’t actually believe they can change sex, but to change our language as if they do believe that.

But ‘there is no coercion here, move along, nothing to see’, it seems.

Would it be spiteful to say that the earth isn't flat to a flat earther?

This.

Anyway

I think we've established that "cis", an ideological in group term, is not a "legal term".

The rest is distraction

Has the meaning of ‘coercion’ been destabilised as well?

Well, hopefully not but it's currently hanging on Allison Bailey's tribunal result. That said, EJ Goodman is a sensible woman and I suspect that the meaning of "coercion" will be properly understood by her and the panel.

«Difficult to do when their offensive views are factual though. hence the "humans cant change sex" which should be the feminist boards' motto.»

when offensive views are factual.
factual. And offensive.

so, that «cis» is NOT a legal term relating to describing a subset of women (who also must subscribe to the belief of gender identity, which is wholly based on European historical norms and gender stereotypes (historical as in some undefined part of the past, not sure exactly when or where but roughly the 1700-1900’s) and must then identify their own gender whether they have one or not AND must see if it matches their sex which they were born with)
is a fact. And can also be offensive.

what about those without language? Who can never articulate their «gender identity»? Who rely on others to care for them and advocate for them. Is their existence being eradicated by not being able to say who they are?

this is a real question by the way.
I know I’m too late for the thread, it has fizzled out. But I do Wonder this.

I am suspicious of any person who dismisses the destabilisation of science and language with the passion of some TRAs and their allies.

To some people, it is simply the destabilisation of a word here and there. But we only have to look at who has been attributed as ‘pioneering’ the theory underlying this movement to destabilise science and language. Who sought to detract established definitions for their own purposes.

It is always important to follow the theory and the movement.

But surely using cis is transphobic as it reiterates to a transperson that they will never be the sex they wish to be. It just reinforces the fact that for example a transwoman can never be a woman as otherwise they would be a ‘cis’ woman. So does the same thing as woman and transwoman just with extra steps and more offence to women.

also how come transwomen are women but women are ciswomen? Are transwomen the only true women now?

p s what exactly is a woman? @beautyisthefaceisee

But surely using cis is transphobic as it reiterates to a transperson that they will never be the sex they wish to be. It just reinforces the fact that for example a transwoman can never be a woman as otherwise they would be a ‘cis’ woman. So does the same thing as woman and transwoman just with extra steps and more offence to women

Come on now, you know logic is forbidden in gender ideology.

From the rules of misogyny....

Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

But surely using cis is transphobic as it reiterates to a transperson that they will never be the sex they wish to be.

It is like the dehumanising use of referring to body parts. How does it help to be called at vagina owner if your vagina causes significant distress? There is large % of transitioned males who are horrified to be referred to as penis havers because they don’t want to have to acknowledge they still have a penis. And we know from detransitioner male stories how the stump of the penis remains and can be active still so even males with their penises removed are constantly reminded they had one.

But surely using cis is transphobic as it reiterates to a transperson that they will never be the sex they wish to be.

It's a strange balancing act they've put themselves in. They want to enforce 'cis' on women to remove the link between biology and 'woman', to marginalise women in their own sex class, and as a way to force women to show compliance. When women describe themselves as 'cis', they are not only signaling TWAW, but reminding everyone that we cannot link biological reality to what it is to be a woman and 'other'women have it worse. Anything that we talk about that only effects 'cis' women suddenly isn't as important as the issues facing 'other' women. It can be used as way to 'edcuate', too.

The problem for them is if it's used too much and is understood too widely, it comes the default. And as people remember that sex exists and is important, it will be used to exclude 'other' women. I don't think we are too far away from a word that links 'cis' women, transmen and female non binary 'folk', that excludes all males, simply because it will be needed, and the alternative phrasing doesn't roll off the tongue.