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.

This discussion is taking a weird turn..
For PrawnLiberationFront, the question was not about telling a trans person trans doesn't exist, or they can't call themselves trans, but that no one can label another person cis if that person objects.

Also, policies, surveys, whatever, cannot use the words cis or trans without clearly defining what cis and trans means. People can also object to the binary setup of cis and trans. So how can you write a policy for cis and trans when you have no definition and you are demanding people come out as cis and trans for it to work?

This is one of the main reasons cis and trans are useless in a lot of areas and are really not relevant. If I have to declare something, I tick 'I don't want to say'. If there is no other option and I have to, I will declare myself trans as I am certainly not cis as I hate gender stereotypes.

In work situations I am very vocal every time I encounter a mixed sex toilet and a mens and I point out that this is discriminating women. Slowly changing the world back...

I certainly think people are becoming more vocal about how gender identity ideology negatively affects them, not less.

Um, you made the claim on the other thread, a poster asked you three times (so far) to provide evidence of that claim which as you are so certain of it should be at your fingertips, the onus is on you to back up your assertions not everyone else to go hunting for evidence you claim to have.

But thinking Maya won on a "technicality"
is why genderists are going to continue to be taken to court over these issues.

It is not legal to discriminate against or harass people on the grounds of their belief in the importance of biological sex. It's not just Maya's case which has borne this out.

The Maya won on a technicality was an absolute humdinger. Shows the absolute totalitarianism of Genderists they cannot abide any other belief than their own and they attempt to force, compel and then impose it by fear. So like so many intolerant regimes throughout history.

Gender critical beliefs are protected, just as the belief that gay sex is a sin. That says nothing about how people can be treated at work, or whether misgendering in some circumstances can constitute harassment.

The Mackereth judgement made this clear.

"Refusing to refer to a transgender person other than by his/her/their birth sex, or relevant pronouns, titles, or styles, would constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment under the [Equality Act"

"It also found the DWP’s policies requiring practitioners to use people’s correct pronouns “were a necessary and proportionate means of achieving [the DWP’s] legitimate aims” of providing an equal-opportunities service – and ensuring trans people who dealt with the DWP “were treated with respect and in accordance with their rights” under the Equality Act."

The belief that gay sex is a sin is associated with certain religions and cultures, which are protected characteristics under the Equality Act as their members are traditionally subject to discrimination and harassment. There is a balance to be struck as lesbian, gay and bisexual people are also protected.

It is not comparable to mere disbelief in a fashionable ideology and favouring women's sex based rights over said ideology. Gender reassignment discrimination deals with discrimination and harassment against people with that characteristic, again there is a balance to be struck.

It is untrue to claim that manifestations of gender critical beliefs are not protected acts. Often they will be, sometimes they won't. Employers and service providers have a duty to ensure everyone's rights are respected, not just believers in gender identity ideology.

The Mackereth judgement made this clear.

"Refusing to refer to a transgender person other than by his/her/their birth sex, or relevant pronouns, titles, or styles, would constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment under the [Equality Act"

"It also found the DWP’s policies requiring practitioners to use people’s correct pronouns “were a necessary and proportionate means of achieving [the DWP’s] legitimate aims” of providing an equal-opportunities service – and ensuring trans people who dealt with the DWP “were treated with respect and in accordance with their rights” under the Equality Act."

This isn't "the Mackereth judgment". It is the original employment tribunal judgment, which precedes Maya's EAT.

The most recent "Mackereth judgment" was his EAT, which superseded it. It upheld most of the ET findings, but not all. It rejected the framing of Mackereth's belief as not worthy of respect or consideration in this way in much the same way Maya's EAT overturned it in hers.

Good Lord, again, if you don't believe in gender ideology, there's no earthly way you should be referred as cis.

People who don't believe in gender ideology are routinely targeted. Therefore, cis is a slur, a judgement, a negative categorisation.

(See people unable to even discuss it anonymously, on an anonymous forum, without consistently falling foul of guidelines intended to engender civil debate).

What is the word for someone who is not Icelandic? What is the word for someone who is not a collector of stamps? What is the word for someone who is not in ownership of yellow curtains? What is the word for someone who is not a plumber? What is a word for someone who is not a believer in fairies?

Quite. What is the word for someone who is not a rapist in a woman's prison, what is the word for someone who is not a middle-aged man getting off on wearing women's clothes, what is the word for someone who is not a confused teenager.

The definition of trans is a movable feast , depending entirely on who's eating what and when.

And stay awake, because that will all change by tomorrow morning.

@PrawnLiberationFront your understanding of cis is limited. Here's what it is. A word introduced by a minority in order to give them that minority the cloak of victimhood and to take away the perfectly acceptable "woman" or "man" (but as we all know the ones who are really being policed by it are those pesky women).

We then find that transwomen, especially a certain sort of middle aged man whose idea of what it is to be a woman is often rooted in either some out of date 1950's hellscape or some bizarre mix of a little girl who wants to dress like a proto-prostitute, insists on being called "a woman", not a transwoman because, apparently, that is offensive to them. Transwomen are not a subset of women, they are a subset of men. Biologically they can never be a woman.

Many women, those who came out of the womb female, refuse to accept "cis" as is their right. You can, of course, continue to refer to us using that word and we can continue to refuse to accept you utter nonsense. You and your ilk can capture as many organisations as you like and we will still refuse, in fact our refusal will become stronger because we will not be told who we are by people who have no idea who and what we are. HTH.

Just out of curiosity, how common is the use of the term "cis man"?

OP isn't talking about what a "practitioner" is doing with pronouns, she's talking about using the ideological term "cisgender" in surveys.

It's not necessary in the vast majority of surveys and insisting it's the default because of an ET case about a practitioner dealing directly with an individual is overreach.

It's interesting that both the pro "cisgender" posters on this thread have supplied different definitions.

It's not going to catch on is it when even it's most devoted fans can't decide what it means? Pointless word.

I object to cis as a term used by other people to basically say I am not trans. It is derogatory that someone should have to continually state what their gender is to anyone who asks and feels entitled to know.People will ask for pronouns before they know the name of that person It is just another form of backward labelling, but I feel the same about having to state Miss/Ms/Mrs on everything. Why do people need to know marital status for a quote? I have a name - use it.

@Delphinium20 We don't need words for those things, which is why we don't have them.

We discuss transgender and non-transgender people all the time here and in other contexts. You have religious and atheist, homosexual and heterosexual for exactly the same reason. The fact that there are very few gay people doesn't mean heterosexual is irrelevant or insulting if you are discussing sexuality, for instance.

You and your ilk can capture as many organisations as you like and we will still refuse, in fact our refusal will become stronger because we will not be told who we are by people who have no idea who and what we are. HTH.

Indeed. And our refusal has already become stronger. I already hear the term 'cis' in mainstream media now. it's confined to a few captured organisations and transactactivists.

she's talking about using the ideological term "cisgender" in surveys.

Actually, I'm talking about writing policies on whether or not it's a term our company should be using in internal and external corporate documents (the surveys thing is about looking for data showing what proportion of people accept/reject/misunderstand the term, to shape and back up the policy).

We discuss transgender and non-transgender people all the time here and in other contexts.

BUT HOW DO I KNOW IF IM TRANSGENDER?

@DadJoke are you going to address your misrepresentation of the Mackereth appeal judgment? You have reproduced quotes from the first tribunal, not the EAT.

Mackereth was still found in the EAT not to have been discriminated against for several reasons which the judgment describes as "highly fact sensitive" (meaning in this specific case they thought that it was not unreasonable to expect him to use pronouns for these vulnerable service users) but the ET finding that his gender critical belief was "not worthy of respect in a democratic society", was, like Maya Forstater's already had been, overturned by the appeal court.

www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/media/Mackereth-v-DWP-philosophical-belief-Christian-transgender#:~:text=He%20believes%20that%20it%20would,users%20by%20their%20chosen%20pronouns.

You have religious and atheist, homosexual and heterosexual ...

"Atheist" is not the opposite of "religious".

religious and atheist, homosexual and heterosexual

If we take purely that argument, and leave aside the question of applying labels to peple regardless of their opinion of that label...

All atheist people share the characteristic of not believing in gods. But you couldn't use humanist as a universal alternative because they aren't all humanists.

All heterosexual people share the characteristic of being sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. But you couldn't use Tinderites as a universal alternative because they aren't all on Tinder.

All not-trans people share the characteristics of not being trans. But you couldn't use cis as a universal alternative because they aren't all cis.

We discuss transgender and non-transgender people all the time here and in other contexts.

No we don't.

We discuss vulnerable children. We actively don't define them as trans. We discuss men's sexual rights and define them as many things! It is they who define themself as trans for various - and diverse - reasons.

More tedious, untrue TRA nonsense.

Most women have probably never heard this term, unless they have attended a Stonewall training, or habituate this forum. So it is relevant to look to its origins.

If my understanding is correct it was a term created by transing men to imply legitimacy to their claim on womanhood through manipulation of language.

It has been used to promote and lend gravitas/solidify this identity
(ergo, I am trans and she, the biological woman, is cis.) A trans centred word for a trans centred view. Biological women have never needed such a word.

I suspect it was also promoted as a preferred alternative to real, original or biological woman, as those words do not blur the truth or boundaries of reality.

If my understanding is correct it was a term created by transing men to imply legitimacy to their claim on womanhood through manipulation of language.

It was coined by a "sexologist" with extremely dubious views about paedophilia, in the 1990s but only caught on in the last 10 years or so.