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?

Do what you like.

You don't get to tell me what I am.

Look at all the dogma!

Assuming a gender binary of cis or not cis is pretty restrictive isn't it?

Yes, what is all this talk of trans people's literal existence being threatened by someone else not believing in them?

All I can think of is Tinkerbell when people say that.

Groundhog Day!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4804885-clarification-of-rules?page=1

Haven't RTFT and won't be.

O P I have no problem using the word cis. I believe trans women are women because they are trans women not because they biologically women so I have no problem with the word. Think it's nonsense and othering to insist on labelling cis as a slur.

I do take issue with your use of the word "default" when applied to words like NT and straight as I think that is stigmatising to non straight non NT people and prefer the term majority as it is accurate without implying it is the "base setting" for people, as to me the connotation of that is that there's something wrong with the alternatives. But I am neither neurodiverse not queer so I don't claim to speak as a member of either of those groups.

Well it is a very real and concerning issue to view being trans as not legitimate because it paves the way to prejudice and discrimination.

That is the issue that gay people faced and still face in many areas of the world - that being gay is not "legitimate" as in a natural sexual orientation but it's viewed as a fetish or perversion instead.

The exact same thing is still happening to trans people.

So when words like valid and legitimate are used.in defence of trans people, it is not said glibly but in direct opposition to statements like "transgenderism should be erased". Because while you may minimise the effect of such rhetoric and dismiss concerns about not viewing being trans as legitimate being dangerous to trans people, it's fairly easy to see how it would at the very least influence trans people to go back into the closet.

Do you believe that hot dogs are dogs because they are hot dogs?

@CandlelightGlow

So what is a woman of any kind?
How do I know if I am one?

As an aside, was talking to an elderly lady on my dog walk today, and she used the word queer with the original meaning, ie, strange and slightly puzzling. Somehow, I found it really refreshing to hear.

(not sure that really fits in this thread)

If sex and gender are two different categories then asserting that humans cannot change sex doesn’t delegitimatise the concept of transgender.

Like the majority of people, I don’t have a gender identity and I don’t believe that gender identity exists.

I don’t have a religion either and I definitely don’t believe in god but that doesn’t mean that other people aren’t entitled to wear swishy outfits and build fancy buildings and pray and proselytise.

But we can’t arrange society on the basis of things that cannot be observed, so we cannot arrange society around gender identity or immortal souls.

Single SEX spaces, sports and services are for those of us with female sexed bodies.

Male bodied people with invisible lady-souls can totally have the beauty pageant stuff, just keep the bewanged bodies out of female sporting categories.

I’m sticking with material reality, but my lack of a gender identity doesn’t impact transgender people, just like my lack of faith doesn’t impact on religious people.

I believe Christians exist, but I don't believe the things they believe about God.

I believe trans people exist, but I don't believe the things they believe about gender.

I'm genuinely baffled by 'it is a very real and concerning issue to view being trans as not legitimate'.

Most people on this thread are saying that a trans identity is a legitimate identity in as much trans people legitimately hold beliefs about themselves. The issue is others don't share those beliefs, and these beliefs are also legitimate.

So, trans people are legitimate people. Their briefs about their identity are also legitimate beliefs.

However, many people in this thread would state that transwomen aren't legitimate women. They are legitimate people, legitimate males and hold legitimate beliefs about their identities.

That is the issue that gay people faced and still face in many areas of the world - that being gay is not "legitimate" as in a natural sexual orientation but it's viewed as a fetish or perversion instead.

The exact same thing is still happening to trans people.

Gender identity is a different kind of thing from sexual orientation, though.

Being gay is about someone's sexual attraction, so it makes sense that the gay person would know who they are attracted to. Whereas gender identity is about the person experiencing it saying "I know I don't look like it, but I actually belong in that other physical class of people over there".

A person being gay doesn't depend on anyone else agreeing with them; it's about their own sexual attraction (or lack thereof) to others. If trans rights merely meant that trans people should be able to wear what they want, have whatever surgeries they felt they needed and not be harassed or criticised for those choices, then that would be similar to the rights that gay people fought/fight for.

So when words like valid and legitimate are used.in defence of trans people, it is not said glibly but in direct opposition to statements like "transgenderism should be erased". Because while you may minimise the effect of such rhetoric and dismiss concerns about not viewing being trans as legitimate being dangerous to trans people, it's fairly easy to see how it would at the very least influence trans people to go back into the closet.

Obviously, trans people shouldn't be criticised for the fact they experience gender distress or gender incongruence, and in the majority of cases, I do believe that a trans person's experience of their inner sense of self is legitimate and that it exists. Aside from the inevitable subset of people claiming a gender identity for nefarious means, I do believe that some trans people genuinely believe they are the opposite sex. And that how they reached that belief is legitimate and perfectly understandable in many cases.

Many people experience deep distress related to gender oppression and their perceived place in the world, and they should obviously be supported in finding relief from that distress. Again, perfectly legitimate and they are in need of much support and understanding.

However, that distress or incongruence that trans people are experiencing around their gender doesn't actually make them the opposite sex, regardless of how fervently they feel it does. And it isn't reasonable to expect everyone else to ignore biological sex in scenarios where it matters to people, simply because some other people would rather not be confronted with their own biological sex.

Setting aside the obvious use of hyperbolic rhetoric designed to evoke an emotional as opposed to a rational response in people, if trans people genuinely do feel terrified that their very existence is being viewed as illegitimate, I suspect that is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding between how people who believe in an inner sense of gender identity view the experience of having an inner sense of gender versus how people who don't believe in gender identity see the same set of circumstances.

Personally, I see being transgender as more akin to being a Christian than to being gay - I don't believe lots of the things Christians believe to be true and centre their whole lives around, and I don't believe that their god as they see him exists and I don't see all things the way that they do, but I accept that they believe those things, that it's important to them and that they have every right to practise and express their faith. I don't agree with Christians when they tell me I'll go to hell if I do x or don't do y, but they typically know that they're free to believe what they want and I'm free to not believe, so we can all coexist quite peacefully and respectfully.

If trans people feel that they can only exist if everyone else can adjust the world and their own thinking so that it accords with how trans people would prefer the world to be, then obviously we are going to run into issues, because that's a wholly unreasonable expectation. If trans people insist that their world view is the only correct one and everyone else must live as if their perception of the world is true regardless of their own beliefs, and if not doing so means that trans people feel they won't be trans any more unless everyone else can do things their way, then I can see why they might see people saying no to them as threatening their right to exist. I still think the issue is a big misunderstanding, though.

@CandlelightGlow :"The exact same thing is still happening to trans people."

No, it isn't. Not at all. And it's high time this particular egregious canard was recognised for what it is and disposed of.

Some people just are sexually attracted to others of the same sex.

-But no-one has ever changed their sex. (And there is no such thing as gender identity in the sense of something universal in humans which causes dysphoria when mismatched somehow with sex.)

This being so, a man sincerely claiming, "I am gay" must be telling the truth, whereas a man sincerely claiming, "I am a woman" must be mistaken.

(I wouldn't talk in terms of 'legitimacy', but if you like, a sincere claim to be gay is always legitimate. But a sincere claim to be trans, if this is taken to mean the claimant has changed sex, cannot be so.)

Of course this does not mean there are no trans people, just that some people are wrong in their self-descriptions. (A bit like, "I'm cool. me," or "I am really attractive'. Not at all unusual; people have always been wrong about themselves, one way and another.)

T just doesn't belong with LGB, despite (strategic) claims of equivalence.

@JoyceMeadowcroft1

“However, many people in this thread would state that transwomen aren't legitimate women.”

Gave you read this thread?

Trans women aren’t women. Trans is a gender state, whilst woman is a biological state.

I believe trans women are women because they are trans women

That's nice. I don't actually believe there is a such a thing as a "trans woman" and don't use the term myself so it makes zero sense to me.

Trans women aren’t women. Trans is a gender state, whilst woman is a biological state.

You're responding to the wrong person, it's @CandlelightGlow who believes it, not @JoyceMeadowcroft1 - Joyce was responding.

And Candlelight arrogantly stated she couldn't be bothered to read other people's comments, so no.

My apologies.

@CandlelightGlow
What do you mean by legitimate in this context?

I'm assuming you're not referring to whether or not their parents are married?

Words have meaning.

Also, I wonder why you feel you should get to be the arbiter of what other people feel is offensive to them when you can't even be bothered to take the time to learn why they feel that?

You dismissively say that it's nonsense to 'label cis as a slur'. I find the term meaningless, inaccurate and offensive, but you get to define my view as 'nonsense' without seeking to understand why i think that. Why is that? Why don't I have the right to define myself and the terms I wish to be described with? Or is that a right that only trans people get?

I have never seen or heard anyone say 'transgenderism should be erased'. That is a straw man, a nonsense interpretation of the views of people you don't agree with, rather than what they've actually said, and certainly not what anyone has said on this thread.

I don’t like cis for a few reasons. I wouldn’t use it for myself because it does connote belief in gender ideology and all the misogynistic tendencies that ideology has. It would align me with something I don’t want to be aligned with. For the same reason I don’t call myself queer, or LGBT despite being bisexual, literally one of the letters in the acronym.
I don’t use it because to accept that I am a vis woman would be to accept that I am a subclass of women. Not a underclass of women, just a sexual subset and I am not. There is only one sex women can have, it’s not like race or height or religion. Transwoman as a moniker is not a type of woman, it’s a type of man.
Intersex people would be my exception here, I would say intersex woman or man if the situation called for it.

I will add that I don’t find being called cis offensive at all, it’s just wrong and unnecessary for me. But I understand why others find it offensive.

I don't think neurotypical or straight are neutral terms. There is an interesting blog on neurodiverse versus neurodivergent which shows that not everyone likes the term neurotypical as the default and there are debates about best how to describe different thinking processes:

https://dart.ed.ac.uk/neurodiverse-or-neurodivergent/

The blog also points out that the terms neurodiverse and neurotypical were developed by people who were neurodivergent so can claim some legitimacy. By contrast, cisgender is a term that many people dislike because it has been imposed on them.

It's the same thing with straight/gay. In the past, 'gay' was an in-group term for being homosexual and could be used negatively or positively, depending on who was saying it. It became more widely adopted because of the negative associations with the term homosexual and all the other homophobic slurs. Some lesbians choose to describe themselves as gay. Others dislike it because it can interpreted as implying men are the default.

Terms that are intended to be neutral often become a slur because of pre-existing stigma. I remember when 'community care' was used insultingly to refer to people with long term mental health problems.

Language is almost never neutral. Look at the terms 'woman driver' or 'man flu' and there are many more examples. I nearly always find that men, women and people will do the job to describe adult humans. I use trans women, trans men or trans people only if there is a specific reason.