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?

What needs labels?

Products.

"Cis" means "having a gender identity that aligns with your biological sex." That assumes that everyone has a gender identity.

Not everyone feels like they have a gender identity. Just like not everyone feels like they have a soul or believes in a god. I've looked for mine and I can't find it (gender identity, soul and God), so I conclude I don't have one. Therefore I don't really like being told that I'm a "cis" woman anyway, because it's implying a belief (in my gender identity) that I don't share.

It's a bit like asking me if I'm Catholic or Protestant after I've told you I'm an atheist.

OP, the gender critical movement is trying to understand why male and female is the offensive. Can you answer?

The faux confusion is so obvious.

And straight and neurotypical have nothing to do with it unless GC people invented those words. Why don't you ask the trans community why those words are acceptable (if you think they aren't)?

@CaptainSeven

Straight as a descriptor for sexuality ONLY came about because of the slur "bent" for homosexuality.

Therefore in its origins is the direct relationship with a slur.

I can understand how that has the potential to have been offensive."

I can understand how it could have had that potential too. But as
Far as I am aware,it didn't.

Feminists reject 'cis' because it upholds gender ideology, e.g. the idea that women can be male as well as female.

A woman might not want to be called 'cis' because:

1. It means she's in a subset of women, the female ones. At which point 'woman' becomes almost meaningless.
2. It implies she's signed up to gender stereotypes.
3. It's often used in a derogatory way: e.g. actual women supposedly have 'cis privilege', which means any concerns about males identifying as women can be safely ignored.

Heterosexuality is something I know about myself because I am attracted to humans of the opposite sex and choose to have sex with some of them.

I believe I am neurotypical because I have not been diagnosed as being neurodiverse.

I am not religious as in I do not practice religion but neither am I am atheist because I do not believe there is no higher power. I identify as a spiritual person.

I am not cis because I do not believe that woman means identifying with sex or gender based stereotypes. I believe that woman is the description of my sex but beyond that, the rest is personality and I neither identify into a set of stereotypes associated with the sex nor wish to be defined by them. I accept the right of other people to choose their own gender presentation but do not wish people to lable me because of mine..

I’ve always wondered this as well.

Not really, as some people have hysterectomies.

Heterosexual is a quantifiable fact. Neurotypical is a quantifiable fact. Cisgender is a judgement of someone's identity. You don't get to impose your opinion of someone's identity on them against their wishes, I'm told it's literal violence.

It's like asking an atheist 'but which God don't you believe in?’

That is a brilliant analogy and I am stealing it! Thank you.

@NotTerfNorCis

Oh yes I forgot about point 3 - another nasty little sleight of language whereby female people, historically marginalised and disempowered, saying no to demands made by male people, historically privileged, becomes "privileged cis people saying no to marginalised trans people"

"Cis" - three letters that somehow manage to hide a whole reality.

I'm not really up on the ins and outs or the political correctness or otherwise of this stuff so for what it's worth .... I dislike cis as I'm female, my description is woman, I don't need to have any other adjective tacked on and for reasons I cant explain it irritates the hell out of me.

If you're anything other than born female feel free to add on some sort of additional descriptor but for women like me just don't.

‘Cisgender’ and ‘transgender’ both refer to types of gender identity.

If, like many of us, you think that the whole concept of gender is regressive, misogynist and homophobic and want nothing to do it, then neither of these terms apply and when you use them you’re ‘misgendering’ us.

I don't call myself either of these things; I am a woman and do not have a diagnosed disability.

I wonder how gender ideologists would react if told by women rejecting “cis” prefixes that it was misgendering and “literal genocide”? Would they laugh like drains at the absurdity of the comparison, or would they think “hold up, that’s truly terrible of me, of course it’s literal genocide to call a GC woman cis, after all the reverse is true. Am I the baddie?”

I find the change in definitions quite interesting.

Not that long ago, we were being told the cis simply means your gender identity matches your gender assigned at birth. We argued against that by stating many of don't have a gender identity and disagree with the concept of gender as simply being regressive stereotypes. Plus, gender is not assigned but rather sex is observed. I was actually once told by a TRA that my position means I'm agender and therefore trans...

The gender identity argument didn't work so now they are claiming it is simply a word that means not trans and it has been used for thousands of years, while completely ignoring the fact that while it makes perfect sense in terms of chemistry or geography "on this side of" gender makes no sense semantically.

Seems to me like they're on the back foot with this one...

Ok, but when people say they don't identify as a woman, they just "are" , they clearly do identify as one then don't they, as there's no disconnect for want of a better expression?
So saying "I don't identify as one" when they clearly do seems a bit daft to me.

@OchonAgusOchonOh

It's the defining trait of this ideology. It's one of the things that makes it so similar to a religion. As soon as one "explanation" for their belief is debunked they swap to another.

Because for them, it's the belief that is the axiomatic thing. The explanations cone after, retrospectively found to justify the belief.

It's really simple @MerlinsLostMarbles .

You wouldn't say, I'm a bent straight (because, yes, the opposite of straight is a slur, so let's amend that to a homosexual heterosexual)

You wouldn't say, I'm a neuro diverse neurotypical, because again, they're opposite things.

Neurodiverse isn't a subset of neurotypical, and transwomen aren't a subset of women (because they're a subset of men).

There are a subset of women who like to pretend they're men, but they're still women, so therefore cis has no actual meaning when used in conjunction with women, except when used as an insult

I think you misunderstand.

When people say they 'just are" a woman, they refer to the original sex-based meaning. Let's call that WomanA

When someone claims a cis or trans identity, they refer to the new mental gender meaning. Let's call that Woman1

So no, it cannot be assumee that the people who "just are" WomanA "clearly do identify as" Woman1 because they are totally different things.

The reason genderists insist on reusing the word Woman to describe something that's obviously a totally different thing is to hide that exact and obvious fact.

I think lots of people (self included) take issue with it because it is gender-driven and we don't require a gendered identity because we are gender critical. To be gendered as a woman is to define a woman using socially constructed norms - ways of dressing, interests, hair styles, timbre of voice etc. That's not what makes a woman. Being born female makes you a woman.

When I was growing up it was perfectly normal to be told You can't do that because you are a woman, you won't be good at that because you are a woman, women lack leadership skills, women are XYZ - all for the benefit and convenience of men. Having spent decades trying to shake off the shackles of gendered sex, we don't prize the trans community's rigid demands that we readopt them. Which - I want to be very clear about this - does not mean I don't respect trans people or hate the movement or think trans people don't exist. I simply disagree that I need to be gendered as a woman. I was born with two X chromosomes, so I am a woman. That's a sex-determined noun, not a gender-determined one.

I don't identify as a woman, any more than I identify as human or an adult. I am a woman by virtue if my sex, a human by virtue of my species and an adult by virtue of my age.

Is it offensive? What isn't offensive to somebody?

Exactly. Much more eloquently put than me😁

We've had call yourselves cs, call yourselves cs but in Arabic and now we're back on call yourselves c*s again. The answer is still No.

I'd like to add that being offended at being correctly sexed is not equivalent to rejecting the label cs. A man claiming to be a woman (or vice versa) is stating his/her belief about himself/herself. It is perfectly consistent with that belief - and used to be considered an obvious truth - to say that his/her sex is nonetheless male/female. They may not like it, but sex is an objective, observable fact. When you try to force the label cs onto women and men, you are making a statement about what their belief about themselves is. You can't decide for other people what they think.