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.

As per many posters, "women" are just that, "women". We are not a subset of our own sex.

As a business decision (if it's a business you're involved in, rather than a public service), using "cis" will alienate numerous potential customers who find it offensive to be called "cis" and won't buy your products. If it's a public service, and you use "cis", expect lots of complaints.

The trans man and NBs are an important point. If they intend to encompass all biological women, or even all biological women and TW, then 'cis' doesn't work because it excludes the TM and female NBs.

'Women' is actually much safer, if they want - as they should - to avoid inadvertent exclusion of anyone biologically female.

What @AnnaMagnani said.

I'd just stick to the basics - ask if they have any evidence that the majority of your target market understand what it means. Given that we get quite a lot of posts asking 'what's cis' on here I'd be amazed if they do.

Then I'd ask if they mean to exclude people who are female but trans.

Because it carries an implication that women who don't declare themselves as nonbinary or transmen are therefore choosing to opt in to their own oppression.

Because it is not the case that anyone "not trans" is cis any more than you can say that anyone "not jewish" is Christian. Some people just don't believe in the concept of gender identity at all and that belief is legally protected as valid as has been established in a court of law.

Because if you accept that everyone gets to define their own gender identity it is fucking offensive to assume a default gender identity of cis for anyone who doesn't actively claim something else.

The only people who should be called cis are those who choose that label. Most people simply do not do so.

This is about specific actual individual women, right?

How do the report writers know they are ‘cis’? Have they been asked? Can the report writers see gender? Do they assume that all women who don’t (bang on about) identify as trans are cis?

Yes, yes and yes. I think this is going to be a big part of my critique...

If it is an official document it should reflect the law.

The law doesn't talk about cisgender or cis women. This is an ideological term which should not replace sex.

The thing is with this approach you risk them replying that cis is just a word for anyone who isn't trans. If you start saying things like "subset of our own sex" you risk losing people or being labelled a Karen.

I think I'd stick to, "Lots of people don't know what this word means, and some of the people who do know what it means find it offensive. I think we should avoid using such politically loaded terminology, especially in the current climate, and stick to clear and factual language. We are talking about women, and a small number of female people who identify as trans men or non binary."

Sounds good to me

It doesn't map to the Equality Act 2010. Most "trans women" are legal men.

This.

Several PP have covered this but I would make sure you ask - in writing - what the evidence is for the use of 'cis':

• where's the evidence that those identified in the report as 'cis' identify that way?
• If there is no such evidence of positive identification where's their evidence that it is ok to assign this label to those so assigned in the report? What is the assigning of gender identity based on? Sex? Appearance? Dress? Femininity? How is this measured and who decides?
• what's the evidence that there is a standard definition of 'cis' and what it is?
• where's the evidence that anyone reading the document will understand what it means to a standard definition? (if not they need to explain exactly what it means and the difference between gender and sex and definitions of both.. which will make the report longer)
• where's the evidence that this will not be considered offensive?
• Where's the evidence that categorising women in this way is useful in the context of the report?

etc

It's considered a slur and banned on at least one of the big social media platforms.

Why should you need to clarify that a woman is… well a woman. Like calling a rock a cis rock (ie it’s not a piece of concrete or blu tac).

people like to jump on the new and shiny to show hot smart they are without actually engaging brain.

you just have to see the ‘women and cis women’ banners held by folks at protests (usually yelling down women) to see where this is going.

hell no.

The idea of trans and cis women and based on a definition of woman linked to gender stereotypes. It excludes females who do not conform to gender stereotypes or who didn't want to be categorised based on them.

*Are based

To be cis is to accept TWAW, so that they can be called Transgender Women and I, a regular Version 1 woman, can be called a Cisgender woman. Therefore there is not one type of woman but two, which...most women, including me, rejects.

Transwomen are men who are in their own, third group, in my opinion.

A little subjunctive counterfactual; conclusion by modus tollens:

• If a cis woman were a kind of woman, it would follow a trans woman is a kind of woman.
• But trans women are men.
• So we shouldn't use "cis" of women.

[If you want to be super-polite and non-confrontational, you could take the second premise instead as "But many people think trans women are men". The conclusion still follows.]

If transwomen are in a third group, then transmen are presumably in a fourth. And given that transmen are actually women, you’re now back to two types of women again.

Transwomen are just men. No third group necessary.

Was coming to say this, but RainbowShit got there first.

Not sure if it’s the same platform, but “cis”is now considered such an offensive word by many that it is outlawed on Twitter.

Other than that addition, this seems a good summary.

’I think I'd stick to, "Lots of people don't know what this word means, and some of the people who do know what it means find it offensive. I think we should avoid using such politically loaded terminology, especially in the current climate, and stick to clear and factual language. We are talking about women, and a small number of female people who identify as trans men or non binary."’

Here's the thing if you use cis women you by default say transwomen are women.

This is problematic in law in terms of seeing personal characteristics as gender reassignment and sex are separate and in erasing sex you make it harder to spot injustices to women on the basis of their sex.

Best to refer to both categories separately. Therefore no cis.

In some african countries it is an insult in line with calling someone a 'cunt'. As a junior doctor found out when he referred to a nurse as 'sis' as in short for sister.

GC views are protected by law. I reject that I have a gender, I have a sex, gender is harmful to all of society but particularly women.

If I was going to engage with your services that would actually make me feel unsafe and I would either find another supplier of the service or just withdraw.

It is a word that has become weaponized. It is not neutral and on social media goes hand in hand with 'Nazi'.

I would be on here also naming and shaming. And on twitter. And facebook.

You might just about get away with 'biologically female' but there is nothing wrong with the word, 'woman'.

So do you want to piss of the majority of your consumers / service users / business?

Personally if I had the choice I'd avoid using the goods or services of any company that uses the word cis in its literature on principle.

Me too!

The fact that it is a very widely-acknowledged slur should be enough for it not to be used.

Fair enough if somebody wishes to describe themselves as a cis-woman or cis-man, if they must - same as people who have reclaimed the word 'queer' - but it is not considered in any way acceptable in normal polite society for somebody to make it clear it to you that they find a label grossly offensive and for you to then still insist on using it for them - especially if you yourself are particular about what labels you will or won't accept for yourself. It is the extreme opposite of any kind of pretence of '#bekind'.

Somebody has drawn the excellent comparison with 'Native Americans' - whereby those who identified with a label for centuries before others came along were then forced to yield it to the newcomers, whilst they had to accept a prefix for their long-accepted identity.

Labelling women as 'cis-women' is, in principle, not really any different from 'informing' black people that they will now be referred to as 'cis-black', to help with distinguishing them from the 'other black people', who are actually just white people with sun tans. Grossly, grossly deliberately offensive.