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.

I suspect it was also promoted as a preferred alternative to real, original or biological woman ...

Or just the shocking term "woman".

Thanks @Ereshkigalangcleg , that is really good to know.
A word with an agenda.

Yep, totally here for the word woman.

I'm wondering what kind of company and what kind of policy is being written here, though of course that is only for the Op to divulge if appropriate.

ooh, I meant to say 'don't hear'.

Shocked

That would be decidedly outing. I'll go as far as to say it will cover use in both internal HR-type documents, and external ones that are quite technical but also need to be understood (and will be widely read) by the general public.

The thing is: ‘people who are trans’ and ‘people who are not trans’ are both nonsensical statements.
Trans in relation to what?

Transsexuals are people of one sex, male or female, who feel they should be the opposite sex. Therefore TWAW is also an oxymoron: you cannot be ‘on the same side as’ and ‘on the other side of’ simultaneously.
Same goes for TMAM. Not possible. You are either a man. Or a woman wishing you are/feeling you ought to be a man.

Language needs to reflect reality. Which is why I strongly object to cis - even if it’s unlikely I’ll ever be called a cis person outside of Facebook or here.

Except if you are Slartibartfast or Beeblexood or what’s his name in the Improbability Ship. Things do behave strangely in the quantum-level.

But being heterosexual is something a person is. It means being sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

I have no reason to ever need to be a cis woman. I am a woman and it has nothing whatsoever to do with trans. So, if you want to talk about me and my kind simply say women and transwomen. Cis is completely unnecessary.

There are very few cases where you "have to" state whether you are cisgender or transgender. In that context, saying some people are transgender, and some people are cisgender is not derogatory.

Some examples:
ONS figures show 28% of trans people experienced crime compared with 14% of cis people

A comparison of perioperative safety for breast augmentation in cis- vs. trans patients

Despite increased preoperative comorbidities, transgender women undergoing chest reconstruction have similar peri-operative safety profiles to cisgender women undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation.

As the lexicographers at Mirriam-Webster noted, the vast majority of uses of cis or cisgender are neutral. Clearly, just as gay people sometimes mock "the straights" or heterosexual people, transgender people might use cis derogatively, it doesn't make it a slur, any more than my daughter and her friends complaining about "sighted people."

I read the appeal. I made no reference to Mackereth's beliefs meeting the Grainger test,. The appeal makes clear that in certain circusmstances misgendering can be harassment, even if you hold a protected belief.

"Such behaviour may well provide grounds for a complaint of discrimination or harassment but, as the EAT in Forstater made clear, that will be a fact-specific question to be determined in light of all the circumstances of the particular case"

Really? Here are some examples which might come up in conversation here.

As a cisgender person, you are much less likely to experience discrimination than a transgender person.

As a cisgender person, you do not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

A comparison of perioperative safety for breast augmentation in cis- vs. trans patients

This is just silly. Were cis men undergoing breast augmentation? No.

So just say males vs. females.

read the appeal. I made no reference to Mackereth's beliefs meeting the Grainger test,. The appeal makes clear that in certain circusmstances misgendering can be harassment, even if you hold a protected belief.

You used a paragraph of the ET argument for why gender critical belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society to suggest that was the outcome of the appeal. It was not. That part was overturned in the exact same way it was in the Forstater EAT. Disingenuous.

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"

This is not the appeal. This is the superseded ET. The EAT considered all this in detail and concluded that it would not be possible to say that was the case in all circumstances and that gender critical belief met the criteria to be protected under the Equality Act in the same way as in Maya's EAT.

If you're pushing the comforting TRA line that gender critical belief can be held but not manifested, you are very much mistaken, @DadJoke

A comparison of perioperative safety for breast augmentation in cis- vs. trans patients

Feelings about gender are totally irrelevant to surgical outcomes. The relevant factors are sex, and what other treatments the person may be having.

A man and a transwoman not taking hormones are identical from the point of view of the surgeon. A man taking hormones (perhaps for prostate cancer) and a transwoman on the same hormones are the same. A woman and a transwoman (whether taking hormones or not) are not the same. A woman and a transman not taking hormones are the same. Etc.

Apologies for indulging the derailing of your thread, Bint, I hope the links I provided re "cis" were useful anyway!

They were, thanks.

Derailing was to be expected.

I'm going to resign from what will be a long game of pigeon chess. Just to finish it on my part:

Gender critical belief is a positive belief protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. As the Mackereth panel considered, a lack of belief in the "gender identity belief" is also protected separately.

Mackereth resigned from his job because he didn't want to use pronouns for service users. He said it went against his belief. They tried to find a way forward but ultimately there wasn't one. He didn't suffer the kind of deranged campaigns against him by managers and colleagues that many women have. The court considered that the organisations approach to pronouns was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, so no discrimination or harassment had occurred. In those particular specific circumstances.

How would you phrase "Transgender people are more likely to suffer discrimination than cisgender people"?

It doesn't mean you can always manifest them without the result being harassment.

That applies to ALL beliefs. Including "the gender identity belief" as it was called in both the Forstater and Mackereth EATs. However, that wasn't the belief under scrutiny in those cases.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly

How would you phrase "Transgender people are more likely to suffer discrimination than cisgender people"?

without a definition, it's nonsense.

By transgender people, do you mean teenage girls, or rapists hoping to get into a woman's prison?

And who you comparing them to in terms of people being 'cis'? Women suffering oppression across the world, disabled people, black people, gay people, old people?

The categories have no definition.

I think he just enjoys saying it, @Datun