Help me explain to the hard of thinking why the word 'cis' should not be in our public facing document

[BangsHeadOnDesk]

That. Can't explain too much more for outing reasons, and have NC too.

But in short, I need to explain to outside contractors and an internal idiot why this is not a good idea. I have some arguments - that we are not taking sides, that it is seen as offensive, but anything to back them up is very welcome.

Because it implies there are sub groups of women.
There aren't.
There are women (adult human females) and men who identify as women.

I would personally describe it as language relating to the doctrines of a pseudo - religion and that the public may object to being referred to by a term which is analogous with heretic.

In a work situation, I would probably do a slightly modified version of this and point out that many people do not identify with the ideological term 'cis' which may lead to less engagement with your document.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/27/the-problem-with-cis/

To echo the previous two posters, it:

i) implies that there are other groups of women, and
ii) validates a belief in the existence of a gender identity as a prerequisite, a belief I don't share.

In addition to this, it imposes a way of describing myself that I haven't consented to, which is something trans rights activist are keen on for themselves.

I wouldn't describe myself as a shiksa or a kuffar, and I find the terms a bit offensive, even if people with other belief systems might use them about me.

You also need to check that in using the prefix cis- they do actually mean only those people? I.e. if they use cis-women, does the context mean that they do actually want to exclude eg. female humans who describe themselves as NB, "queer" or trans in some way?

It the document related to sex or gender?

If sex then cis is not needed but may cause confusion and hurt

If gender, then a lot more descriptions are needed as many women are not cis or trans ( none binary , gender none conforming, gender rejecting ....)

And of course, using cis- could also exclude those who do not to identify with gender concepts at all.

Because 'cis' is about gender stereotyping and makes the assumption that the majority of women comply with outdated gender stereotypes in dress and behaviour.
Additionally, it others gender non-conforming women by implying that they might not be women at all. It is a deeply sexist concept.

It's insulting to women, who are just that, women. We aren't a subset of ourselves.

I'd say something like "Cis women means female people who identify as women. Do you mean that, or do you just mean female people in general? Plenty of female people aren't cis, I mean I'm not for a start" and give a big friendly smile

Are men ever referred to as cis?

https://genderapostates.com/cissexism-and-you/
This is written by a transwoman, against the use of the term 'cis'.

"The Orwellian use of ‘cis’ would be astonishing, if it were new, but naming women is an age old trick. Transgenderists are simply following the tricks of their fathers. Following transgenderist logic, Transwomen are women. Female people are “ciswomen.” Therefore, the only “women” who have the right to call themselves women are transwomen. Through these language games transwomen further the othering of women. They define womanhood, just as men have done for centuries before them. It is not the place of transwomen, or men, to define what woman is." (my bolding)

The whole piece is interesting, but that particular paragraph helped me to see why 'ciswomen' made me uncomfortable.

"If someone refers to you as ‘cis,’ if someone insists you label yourself as such, think about what they are asking. Think about how they are trying to define you. You do not have to bear a label, because transwomen are uncomfortable with themselves. You do not have to wear an identity someone else has handed you."

The point of someone else labelling you - I've seen that mentioned many times over the years. Why are transwomen allowed to reject how anyone else labels them, but women are not? Hypocrisy!

The irony with this whole thing is that it started with 'I don't want to be a transwoman, call me a woman' . And yet 'I don't want to be a cis woman, call me a woman' is rejected. Double standards?

Lordy.

I am so sorry for you OP but your user name and the opening post made me laugh.

Not everyone understands what 'cis' means, my mother would not know what it ment and assume that it did not apply to her.
the Census data has proved that beyond doubt and women who's first language is not English and many others may struggle to understand it.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/05f7ca79-be9f-47ec-9e82-7e6bf41bf863?shareToken=9879f52b6564237d8918ba035cd22c89

Also we have moved to a 'post Cass' era and it's going out of fasion.

@PaleBlueMoonlight Yes the document is talking about a group who are mainly women but also contain non binary people and a trans man, so the cis is correct in at least that respect. However I would (if they catch me on a bad day) question whether they have asked the others if they are happy to be described as cis.

@midgetastic This is the core of it. I think this work is about sex, but they think it is about gender. However, on that logic the trans man should not be in the group, so I reiterate, this is about sex.

Oh yes, so only trans women are women. Brilliant. I will be using that when I talk about this.

Report deadline extended, meeting next week. I cannot, sadly, post details as it will be too identifying.

Also we have moved to a 'post Cass' era and it's going out of fasion.

Yes indeed, this is one of my main points. Why are we tying ourselves to a sinking ship and pissing off 25% of the audience in doing so.

Because it is utter bollocks nonsense. HTH 😁

They won't listen to you if you try and explain why it's wrong in a logical and inclusive sense. Because they're convinced they're on the Right Side of History or whatever.

The only angle they'd listen to is that they'd put off customers/clients. Because many people don't believe in or agree with this ideology and it'll put them off.

All us bigotty types, and we are in large numbers.

Point them towards poll findings and stats etc.

For example like how Bud Lite plunged their share price when they sponsored Dylan Mulvaney.

“My understanding is that the cis prefix relates to people whose gender identity ‘matches’ their biological sex. But it presupposes a belief in something called gender identity which entirely unfounded in science or fact and is based on reductive and unhelpful stereotypes. It is better practice to keep to what is universally known and factual ie. that there are men and women.”

Because ‘cis’ is a made up word, made up by people who are trying to push a fiction - that sex is not real. It’s a language issue. So…

We need to reclaim language.

Every time we use fabricated terms like ‘cisgender’, transgender,’ ‘gender identity,’ or ‘correct pronoun usage,’ we reinforce the notion of people existing outside the boundaries of our species’ biological sex - which is wrong.

There is a substantial section of society thatd see something like the word cis in a document and immediately think "oh ffs more silly nonsense" and take our business elsewhere.

We may be on the Wrong Side of History (I don't think we are) but we have a lot of spending capacity and we'll take it elsewhere and roll our eyes too.

This is what I'd tell your colleagues

yeah that's me. As soon as I see 'cis' I lose all interest.

Most definitely not ‘on the Wrong Side of History’. Truth has a way of doing that!

Using cis tells me you subscribe to an ideology that prioritises men's feelings over women's and helps erode their rights to safe spaces and unfairly disadvantages them in sports.

And that's a hard no from me.

If I was in the group of women in your workplace being called Cis I would be furious. The word puts my back up no matter where I hear or read it. As does the assumption of having a gender identity at all.