Sources help - cis

[NoBinturongsHereMate]

I know many here have splendid reference catalogues, so I hope you can hit me with some written sources about not using 'cis'.

Ideally including an explanation of why - although I can do that part myself if needed - but mainly I need to demonstrate that there's a significant level of objection.

So surveys with numbers objecting to the term would be ideal, or docs from multiple groups stating their objection.

Cis and trans is extremely binary and is also not based on a definitive clear set of criteria. Unlike believer, Jewish etc.

Using cis for someone is offensive as you are assuming they have

1. The same definition of gender stereotypes, cultural roles and gender as a concept as you do. However, gender varies per culture and therefore gender identity, how someone aligns to the cultural concept of gender as well.
2. Assumes there is only the binary cis and trans.
3. If non binary and gender non conforming is part of trans, probably over 80% of the population is then transgender. Meaning the whole concept is not really very useful except when you want to talk about how the world treats people who feel cis (and have expressed this) as transgender is the majority.

So unless an organisation has a clear set of criteria when someone is trans or cis, can they ask for your opinion of yourself and then they can classify you as cis or trans. My first response is always what use is it to organisation to know how I feel about myself with regard to cultural expectations.

There are other terms which reflect distinctions without accepting an ideology - gentile and Jewish, believer and non-believer.

Nah.

There's no definition for being trans. It can be a 14-year-old same sex attracted girl, or a middle-aged male fetishist, or a rapist who wants to be housed with incarcerated women.

You not only make it up as you go along, you either violently disagree with the non believers, or punish them, or fire them, or get them arrested. (obviously I don't know if you personally do that).

People who you like to call cis, get arrested or attacked, for disbelieving in an ideology that is made up on the spot depending on who's got their self-serving hat on that day.

Hence the almost universal dismissal of the term cis, by anyone with even the slightest understanding of its implications.

Very well put, @Datun

"hyperbolic bollocks"

lol

But always good to know, prawn, that you don't think all the transwidows exes are really trans, or the likes of Debbie Hayton, or the children showing up to GIDS clinics.

Or Isla Bryson, of course. Or Karen white. Or Karen Jones. Or Barbie Kardashian.

I wouldn't have had that deleted.

There's nothing that warms my cockles more than a TRA poster proving the point of the OP.

still, I suppose a deletion proves something.

Bother - post zapped before I saw it. What did I miss?

"Bigot" said half a dozen different ways, with a lot of 'hyperbolic bollocks' in it. Plus it was rather, er, rude. 🤣

Opinions that are pro-women, and protected by law, so totally appropriate for the workplace. As recent court cases have proven. Much to the dissatisfaction of a couple of recent posters in FWR, perhaps.

which is likely not at all appropriate to air in the workplace.

Yeah, women are not just arrested, attacked, fired and punished. But also taken to court.

How's that working out, I wonder! 😁

Incidentally, Maya Forstater was 'radicalised by mumsnet'. She gave me a sticker with that written on it. She was handing them out after a talk. Pleased as punch.

No, the legal rulings have been explicitly clear that while you're entitled to hold GC beliefs you're not entitled to limitless expression of them in the workplace. Much like you're entitled to believe gay marraige is a sin but if you stand up in a work meeting and start banging on about it and making colleagues uncomfortable you could absolutely be disciplined for that.

Hmm. "limitless" is not what was stated. There is a difference between stated appropriately and "banging on"/limitless. And of course you are leveraging homophobia to try to make your point.

If nothing else I don't think it's fair when FWRers give posters terrible advice that could land them hauled up in front of HR, because Saint Maya managed to score a victory on a technicality, but I suppose that's your own problem, OP.

"It's just not fair!" stamps foot and pouts.

On a technicality!

Oh blimey.

If they boot me out in a discriminatory fashion and give me the chance to meet Ben Cooper and get a nice fat compensation cheque, that's absolutely fine with me.

In fact NOTHING Maya said was ruled impermissible by the tribunal.

Crikey, prawn. Do you want some calamine lotion? All that straw must be making you itch like mad.

They OP is perfectly entitled to express her opinion that she does not wish to be called cis. Or that it should be deleted from company documents for instance.

And that many people consider it a slur.

She is also perfectly entitled to provide evidence that this is a widespread opinion.

Mind you, it's not surprising you consider that 'limitless expression' and 'banging on'. It comes from the same stable as hyperbolic bollocks.

That 'technicality' being that it was against the law.

Details, details...

lol, it's the Stonewall advice that's getting people landed in court.

It's 'Stonewall Law'.

Not 'mumsnet law'.

Or you might lose like David Mackereth. Funny how FWR doesn't talk about his case much.

Oh "mumsnet law" is absolutely a thing.

I keep misreading 'hyperbolic bollocks' as 'parabolic bollocks'. Quite different, and most disconcerting.