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?

I am aware that there has been a 'slight' increase in probing questions around GC beliefs in the the last few days. I can't imagine that it has anything to do with the recent judgements over Mermaids v LGBA or Alison Bailey v GCC.

Telling me I must be "cis" if I'm not "trans" is like telling an atheist they must be a Catholic if they are not a Protestant. We don't all believe in "gender" or "god".

Oh, and telling us we are just not acknowledging the gender we really do feel is exactly the same as a religious zealot telling an atheist that "of course" they have experienced the presence of god they just don't recognize it.

You have a belief system which we do not share.

There are many reasons why people object to the use of "cis" - here's another one: https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/cis-coined-by-pedosexual-apologist

Isn't it funny how transactivists always claim to get loads of PMs from women on Mumsnet telling them how right they are? Every single time. 😂

Also odd how there’s usually just one single solitary poster defending gender ideology on any thread. It reminds me - a Guardian reader - of joining the Telegraph talk boards, certain it would just take a bit of left-wing common sense to stop them all voting for the Tories and Brexit. I didn’t last long. It wasn’t even fun.

I don’t know what Merlin gets out of it, unless Merlin is paid to do it. I’ve never seen anyone persuaded by their arguments.

If that's to me, I never said loads?

• I'm not a trans activist

-I have had messages agreeing with me in the past If you don't believe me, that's your problem and I honestly couldn't give a shit if you do or on't. I was referring to a comment on here saying they do it for the lurkers. Where you fall on the "debate" as a result I've learnt is up to you.

I got 893 PMs agreeing with me just in the last hour, personally.

Good for you 👍

Excellent!

It's all very galling.
😂

There's some really shocking lesbophobia on this thread.

💐to those on the receiving end.

Cis is not exclusive to women.
There can be cis men as well. I dont think they identify as women...

The point about calling someone ‘cis’ presupposes that they believe in gender identity still stands, though.

I think it went just as he wanted it to, he seems to enjoy trolling FWR, with very little comment investment from himself other than the initial troll post, getting back pages and pages of women arguing about the latest false misunderstanding he's cooked up.

To be fair there's usually two. The OP starts the hare running, then a poor workhorse takes up the duty of defending it.

I suspect the workhorse is female. I've seen them time after time valiantly attempting to defend the indefensible, basically because they want to demonstrate their kindness and defend the poor vulnerable folx.

And I look at the labour dynamic and sigh yet again.

Not half as many as the other way around. In fact most people dare not say anything at all about what they really think because they are frightened of the inevitable rain of abuse and name calling that accompanies being a gender ideologue; and I'm not just talking about on Mumsnet.

The rain of abuse coming from gender ideologues is what I meant

I suspect that also has something to do with Elon musk's 'policy' around using the term 'cis' on twitter. So many people seem to rely on twitter, entirely, for their news and views. They must feel like they are facing an existential threat.

That makes a change of course, because up until now it is only thoise who subscribe to reality that have been persecuted. The ideologues have been having ther own way for quite a long time.

There has been quite a bit of 'ramping up' during Pride month - with activists really trying to push the boat out. For example the 'breastfeeding man' and 'I'm just a poor housewife and mother doing the laundry' provocations.

That's not the point! That women are most impacted by gender ideology is why most of the focus is on the colonisation and appropriation of womanhood that is essential to the furthering of such post modernistic theories of the self.

If you can get people to adopt your dogma/creed, with all of its conventions and rules around correct terminology then you are more easily able to achieve your aim; which is to centre the concept of 'gender identity' and suggest it is more important than the reality of biological sex.

I always find the 'ooh yes, I get loads of PM's agreeing with me' amusing because -

1. I don't believe you. Sorry mate.
2. I've never had more than a handful of PM's (mostly about recipes) because the posters on here have the wherewithal to actually defend their arguments. Those apparently sending PM's are clearly so used to other platforms where you can block/mute/'only mention' other posters that someone actually saying 'hang on, can you back that up?' is much, much too scary.

I lurked for years before posting. I never bought into the ideology but was willing to listen to any opposing arguments. Bodger's lack of any coherent argument helped prove to me that there actually wasn't an apposing argument.

Yes, I think it's great to have dissenting views as it enables everyone (including lurkers coming from all sorts of perspectives) to consider many aspects and arguments they might not have otherwise considered.

What I find disappointing (not on this thread specifically) is dissenting posters who continue to post (and so are obviously still there) but who, after a few articulate and seemingly genuinely curious posts, then switch to repetitively posting words to the effect of "well you're all mean then" and "my friends were right about you" instead of continuing a constructive debate.

yup

If your ideology doesn't rely on regressive stereotypes then prove it

explain what makes Angela Merkel and Jane Fae both women. what are the characteristics they share?

they never, never can. I really don't understand how people can find themselves on the internet vigorously defending beliefs they don't understand and can't explain, and moreover implying that there's something wrong with people who don't share those beliefs

A lot of people have bought into gender ideology on the basis that they thought adopting the full set of beliefs and positions would put them on 'the right side of history' and make them one of the good guys.

Most people noew exist in narrow echo chambers and rarely come across anyone who challenges their beliefs, and so when they do stray into other 'territory' they are likley to be a lone or fairly singular voce ( this is the experience for many of us here...being a single lone voice being prepared to speak out).

Because the convention within social justice circles is for 'No debate' - "just shut up and listen" debating skills and logical argument is not well developed.
Instead there is unquestioning absorption of articles of faith; along with a whole set of automatc responses and ripostes: " Denying my existence"; "right wing"; "fascist"; " "Be kind"; "Transwomen are women"; "dog whistles"; "cishet normativety"; "white/cis privilege" and so on.

I'm sure there are many reasonably educated and intelligent people who subscribe to genderism; in fact we know there are many, which always comes as a cause for bafflement - but because they are have never had to back up their positions beyond a certain point - they do not have the full set of arguments to hand. After a point, they resort to the above automated responses. They do not want to expose themself to alternative sources of information, or alternative arguments. They attack the person, not the point.

Anyway, we have seen on so many occasions what a dead end gender ideology is...it is just not grounded in common everyday reality - and so has to appeal to the emotions instead; centring 'feelings' in everything.

If you think it is fine to call people "cis" even though they find it offensive, then surely it is fine to call trans-people whatever we want? Or is it yet again, one rule for trans another rule for everyone else?

Trans people: "Don't call us this, don't call us that".
People: "Don't call us cis".
Trans: "You don't get to decide, we'll call you whatever we want".

^^ this is one of the many things that grinds my gears about cis.

The hypocrisy of insisting you can apply a label to a group of people who reject that label, just because. While at the same time having a melt down if anyone inadvertently gets your pronouns 'wrong' (ie uses the correct ones for your sex).

The injustice and misogyny is there for all to see. Only some people have their hands over their eyes.