Is it offensive to say "straight" or "neurotypical"?

[MerlinsLostMarbles]

I've been trying to understand why the gender critical movement are saying "cis" is offensive and still not quite getting it since it just means "not trans" (cis and trans are prefixes with opposite meanings).

From what I can gather the argument given by the gender critical movement is that the "default" is not-trans, therefore there shouldn't need to be a word for the "default", just as we don't have a specific word for someone who doesn't collect stamps (an example I've seen given).

But we have "straight" and "heterosexual" to refer to people who aren't homo/bi-sexual, we also have "neurotypical" to refer to people with typical neurological development or functioning. You could say these are also "defaults".

So why is "cisgender" an apparent "offensive slur" when straight and neurotypical aren't?

That’s the point though, isn’t it? Trans colonialists want to be wherever women are. When women opt out, by saying, “actually I’m not cis”, we’re performing the linguistic equivalent of preserving single sex spaces.

The 'trans pride' march yesterday did seem to be rather light on females. From what I saw.

Exactly.

If someone's self-identity is predicated on the notion that they are a member of another biologically distinct group, then they necessarily rely on that group's acceptance of them as a member to make their belief that they are a member of that group true.

It's not just that they merely want to live how they like or to reject gender stereotypes, it's that they have pointed to women specifically and claimed to be one of us. So it doesn't work if we all walk away as their identity as "transwoman" depends on our existence. Without women and biological sex, both "trans" and "woman" have no meaning.

Without agreement from others from within the group of women, that person would have to examine their own psychological drivers and would need to find a way to reconcile their beliefs with reality. And honestly, who can be bothered to do all that work when it's far easier to simply bully women into submission?

I saw many banners in the trans march this weekend where cis was used as a slur.
"Fluid forms erode the cistem"
"Flush the cis-tern"

There were more.

It's a fascinating bit of psychology.
They insist biological women belong in a 'cis' gender box, denigrate us for being in it, then get even more angry when we repeatedly refuse to accept the box.
We're not the ones believing that 'cis' is a real thing that women naturally are.
It's impossible to smash the 'cistem' while enforcing it.

What do those ‘cis’ slogans even mean?
Can someone make sense of them?

What do they mean?

It isn't offensive to heterosexual people, it's the antonym of bent so sort of a veiled insult to homosexual people. I never really understood why people were accepting of it

What's wrong with 'cis'? It's quite straightforward, OP.

For the locution 'cis woman' to make any sense, trans women would have to be women. But they're not. So it doesn't.

Clear now?

It is not offensive TO YOU, but you straight does have its origins as the antonym to bent, which surely you agree could be offensive.

In some ways it doesn't matter whether you agree if you have been told that cis IS offensive to some people, and told why.

I mainly find it offensive because you persist in using though you have been asked not to. What I mainly find it is inaccurate. I'll tell you again why it does not describe me/I reject it.

1/ It assumes cis and trans are both subsets of women. Which I reject.

2/ Cis is an identity. It means "a person who's gender identity is aligned with their sex" My gender identity doesn't align with my sex because I don't have a gender identity. Gender is sex stereotypes only loosely based on group averages. I reject the entire premise.

3/ It is the language of a specific branch of postmodern queer theory which I have read extensively and reject at the most fundamental level.

Not trans is accurate. Cis is not.
That you can't grasp that is a feature of your religion like beliefs.

What do those ‘cis’ slogans even mean?
Can someone make sense of them?

I have heard the theory that it's based on communist theory, ie:
the working class were the oppressed and their oppressors were the rich and middle class, this was applied to feminism- women are the oppressed 'class' and men are the oppressors and lately through Universities queer theory evolved -queer people are the oppressed 'class' and 'cis' people (non queer men and women) are the oppressors.

@Xoxoxoxoxoxox
Yes... but here's the thing, the actual communists don't buy it (I think the Morning Star was among the first newspapers to be openly critical of genderism). The thing about 'queerness' (as distinct from homosexuality, a genuinely oppressed class still, or 'old school genuinely dysphoric transsexuals') is that it's apparently a class open to anyone who chooses to self-identify into it. It's stacked out with objectively very privileged people - western academics for instance.

Then surely ‘woman’ means not trans and ‘trans woman’ means trans?

All of the (non-trans) women I have spoken to about this find the term ‘cis’ highly offensive so I don’t know why this term is still being still being forced upon us. Happy to replace cis with ‘real’ or ‘natural’ though although I’m sure that won’t go down well in some circles…

Woman doesn’t even mean non-trans. Woman is a biological state, whilst trans is a gender concept.

You're right, cis isn't a slur. in previous decades anti-lgbt assholes, the likes of which this forum is full of, thought that straight was a slur by the same logic as we're seeing in the current cultural moment - it would mean they'd have to see trans peoples' (previously gay and bi peoples') mere existence as legitimate.

Whatever someone thinks of trans people, they must have the faculties about you to understand that 'trans' is an adjective. 'Cis' is its antonym, so anyone who isn't trans is cis. Getting up in arms about this subject is such laughably childish behaviour!

So fighting against oppression is childish behaviour? Hmm

Cis is offensive because you're labelling people against their wishes. A bit like calling countries "East" or "West" because you've decided that Everything Revolves Around You

Nope. Cis means someone whose gender identity aligns with their sex while trans means someone whose gender identity does not align with their gender identity.

Referring to people who do not have a gender identity as cis is similar to catholics referring to atheists as protestants. They are assuming all people have a belief in christianity, and therefore, if they are not catholic, they must be protestant.

To be fair, I don't think anyone would be inherently offended if it wasn't for the TRA's ridiculous demands. It's the intention that makes something offensive.

@invalide: "Whatever someone thinks of trans people, they must have the faculties about you to understand that 'trans' is an adjective. 'Cis' is its antonym, so anyone who isn't trans is cis."

No, you don't have your faculties about you, invalide. 'Trans' in 'trans woman' is not an adjective qualifying the noun 'woman'. If it were, it would entail that a trans woman is a kind of woman ... whereas actually a trans woman is a kind of man.

If a trans woman were a kind of woman, it might have made sense to talk of a cis woman as a kind of woman also. But a trans woman is not a kind of woman. (And could not be: mammals cannot change sex.) So, gather your faculties about you, invalide, fill in the gaps, and draw the correct conclusion: it really makes no kind of sense to talk of cis women.

[This is independent of whether 'cis' is pejorative. (It probably is, imo.)]

@invalide tells us they don't understand the issue without saying they don't understand the issue.

The issue is not who is "normal" and who is not.

Saying "oh cis just means someone who isn't trans" is fine if you are talking about humans in general and not ascribing any more meaning to trans than "someone who identifies as trans".

But as soon as you make it cis woman and trans woman, as soon as you say [inserted clarifications mine] "oh a cis woman [cis woman == female] just means a woman who isn't trans [trans woman == male]" you have gone beyond that initial claim to also assert that a male person with a trans identity is equivalent to a female person without a trans identity.

That is far more than the original statement. It requires firstly utterly redefining what a woman is, and then imposing your new definition unilaterally upon women (original sex based meaning) who may not in any way identify with your concept of womanhood as a mental state and may in fact find it sexist and regressive.

The only way to square that circle is to bring gender identity into it, and use the definition "oh cis women have a sex that aligns with their gender identity and trans women don't". But in adopting this definition, you are either implicitly making assumptions about the gender identity of the women you assign "cis" that may not be how they know themselves to be (and again may be projecting on to them assumptions they find belittling, dehumanising and offensive, or you have to accept that many female people will fall outside your simple trans/cis binary, leaving them unnamed by your appropriation.

In short, yes cis is potentially offensive. Using it as a collective noun to mean "all non trans women" is just plain wrong. Using it for an individual is risky.

Like "trans", you should only use it to describe someone who has told you they are happy to be described that way.

it would mean they'd have to see trans peoples' (previously gay and bi peoples') mere existence as legitimate.

Are you suggesting that people who object to "cis" have trouble believing that people who describe themselves as trans actually exist in the world?

Or are you saying that people who don't like the term "cis" object to it because they don't subscribe to gender identity ideology and have a different interpretation of the human experience that trans people often describe as having a sense of their own gender identity?

invalide

it would mean they'd have to see trans peoples' (previously gay and bi peoples') mere existence as legitimate.

Why are you trying to label all gay and bi people as trans?

Gender ideology is intrinsically homophobic because it negates the concept of same sex attraction, which is one reason the whole LGBTetc thing doesn’t work. But merging them was a very clever move.

People are "legitimate", and exist. But men aren't women.