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.

I'd suggest they consider risks to the brand, if it's a commercial organisation.

The word/idea of 'cis' comes from a highly contested and partisan political argument, and any brand with any sense would stay well away from such inflammatory language.

Its not a 'fact' that there are cis people. Its an unevidenced idea. Its a belief, like any other belief.

Your company should not be describing people in terms they do not use to describe themselves and which they reject when applied to themselves.

People fall into three categories:

• they have not heard of gender ideology. They are faintly bewildered and put off by a business using the jargon.

• they have heard of gender ideology and agree with it. They are happy to be called cis (or trans, nb etc).

• they have heard of gender ideology and think it's nonsensical and oppressive to women and girls, and they eye roll about it and avoid businesses who promote it.

Categories 1 and 3 comprise the majority of society. Using cis in a document will put off those categories of people.

I ordered the categories in that order because I think basically everyone will spend time in each category in that order. We all started off not knowing about it, then (if briefly) thinking ok I'll be kind, then eventually pretty much everyone will reach Category Eyeroll

Try saying cis is a minefield because it makes assumptions, often stereotyped ones, as to how people identify. And unless you can know for sure that all the people classified as cis happily id as cis then the organisation could be misgendering them and that would be literal violence. Or something.

Nah. I went straight to eye roll.

Watching with interest as this is one I came across recently in my workplace - fortunately not directly so didn’t have to deal with it but I suspect it will crop up again.

Cis isn't widely understood. A large subsection of those women who do understand it find it insulting.

I go to a menopause clinic that has a statement on its website to the effect that they use the word women throughout but acknowledge this includes trans men, some non binary people etc

Would that work on your document?

Because it excludes males and females that do not identify as "cis".

Its a label being forced on people by people that get shirty if you mis-label them.

It is a non-sense term that does not relate to to how it is being used.

It centers 0.1% (less) of the population as the meaning has been changed to "not trans"

It stands a good chance of actually turning away business given the current climate.

Link to the plain English site

It’s inaccessible language

Is it purely an internal use, or would it involve clients / customers? If the latter, I'd be tempted to sidestep the whole issue and say that it is a niche term that would hamper clarity and communication with target audiences.

If pushed, you can use the example of the census to show that when it is used it is widely misunderstood.

Yes, unfortunately.

As someone put it very well upthread (I may be paraphrasing a bit): Why should women be forced to adopt a different label for ourselves just because transwomen feel uncomfortable with who they are?

The whole principle of 'cis' rests on the idea that gender identity, i.e. an innate inner feeling of gender, is a real thing that everyone has. But there is not a shred of proof of that being the case.

Good luck OP, some good advice here as ever.

Among some of my friends, cis is used as a way of strategically identifying yourself as an ally and prostrating yourself as being part of a majority who needs to defer to marginalised communities. That's why it often gets bundled in with being straight, as in 'cishet' (an ugly, meaning-free word that's a mix of Latin and Greek!).

So I find it both offensive and tedious and I disengage from anything that uses it.

I haven’t read all the messages so apologies if this has already been said, but here is an analogy I find useful.

Saying that someone must be “cis” if they aren’t “trans” is like saying that someone must be Catholic if they aren’t Protestant.

So many great replies on this thread!

Yes.

Ha ha you are brilliant and very reassuring that I have not lost my mind.

Sadly no updates until next week at the earliest, but I will return

It's Controversial!

Author JK Rowling, who made headlines after commenting on topics relating to the transgender community, tweeted: “‘Cis’ is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.”

Also have just discovered a new linguistic term.

The term (t**f) is actually an exonym – a term used to describe a third party that the third party neither recognises, nor uses itself.

I don't think you can claim cis is a slur but it's a close cousin.

It makes an assumption about somebody’s feelings about their identity, and that is wrong.

It’s a bit like asking somebody whether they are Protestant or Catholic without allowing for them either not having a faith or being Muslim.

And this has already been explained I see!

Cis relates to gender identity. Gender identity is about self ID. Unless every single human data point in your report has been asked what their gender identity is (and bearing in mind many will be agender / don't believe in gender identity / find cis offensive) then to label them as cis without their consent is transphobic.

Very exclusionary, tsk tsk.

I doubt they have the self ID gender id of all the people in their data, which means they're assigning a gender identity based on what? Sex, outdated stereotypes, whether or not the person wears a skirt, age? Obviously don't know what your report is about - understandably - but imposing a label on people that haven't consented is unlikely to endear them to anyone.

Spot the inconsistency:

1. “I don’t believe TWAW”
2. ”When people decide who they are, nobody is allowed to disagree”

1. ”ok, I’m not a cis woman, I’m a woman”
2. “ we’ll decide how to label you, you don’t get a say”

😂😂🤷‍♀️

I think I would focus on comprehensibility and accessibility.

1. Who is being discussed?
2. Who is the document aimed at?

Depending on the answer to 1, use of the word "cis" may result in you not describing the correct group of people. And depending on the answer to 2, using the word "cis" is likely to make the document more difficult to understand for anyone who is not well versed in LGBT+ issues, as well as potentially offensive to anyone who does not like being described in this way.

I would suggest that the document should say something like, "This group consists primarily of women, as well as trans and non binary people who were registered female at birth".