Page 4 | Help me explain to the hard of thinking why the word 'cis' should not be in our public facing document

BangsHeadOnDesk · 2024-04-24T11:45:11+00:00

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.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/04/2024 10:30

RedToothBrush · 26/04/2024 07:46

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.

This. It is taking a side.

DrSoupDragonsFriend · 26/04/2024 10:41

Also, given the way that things are beginning to tumble about gender ideology, a publicly available printed document (if that is what it is) which includes -cis might become out of date quite quickly and there may be cost implications for reprinting it.

RedToothBrush · 26/04/2024 11:22

DrSoupDragonsFriend · 26/04/2024 10:41

Also, given the way that things are beginning to tumble about gender ideology, a publicly available printed document (if that is what it is) which includes -cis might become out of date quite quickly and there may be cost implications for reprinting it.

Including a legal cost citing discrimination against women or gender critical beliefs.

Original poster

BangsHeadOnDesk · 26/04/2024 11:37

DrSoupDragonsFriend · 26/04/2024 10:41

Also, given the way that things are beginning to tumble about gender ideology, a publicly available printed document (if that is what it is) which includes -cis might become out of date quite quickly and there may be cost implications for reprinting it.

This is the gist of why I don't want it anywhere near our organisation. It's a reputational risk that we do not in any way need to take.

I also don't particularly want to work for an organisation which aligns itself with these beliefs, so might need to start looking elsewhere.

OP posts:

HornyHornersPinkyWinky · 26/04/2024 11:37

WhereYouLeftIt that is such a good opinion piece, and sadly will likely be taken more seriously because it's written by a transwoman (i.e. a man).

In particular this bit - so fucking true:

So what about trans people who insist upon the use of ‘cis’ for non-trans people? It’s a special case, fascinating in the attempted inversion of oppression. Transwomen frame themselves as the default. Though they wrap themselves in the mantle of victimization and oppression, they rely on their male privilege to push a narrative which flips the normative. Alterity would suggest that trans and cis are simply oppositional descriptive terms. As a minority, transwomen should lack the power to push a cis label onto anyone. Remember, only the One, the default, can name the Other. Transwomen are not used to being the other. They are uncomfortable being the minority. Male privilege and entitlement has taught them the world is their’s for the taking. ‘Cis’ is a way of claiming the default. As males, they retain the power of naming. Not only will they define what a woman is, but they police who is allowed to call themselves woman.

2mummies1baby · 26/04/2024 19:30

Apologies if someone had already mentioned her, but Victoria Smith has made some really good points about this:

'... “cisness” (that imaginary state of identifying with the sex role stereotypes imposed on one because of one’s sex)...'

'... “cis woman” ... is a way of defining a concept we already know — feminism, woman — because the original term has been co-opted.'

I will edit as I find more!

2mummies1baby · 26/04/2024 19:46

2mummies1baby · 26/04/2024 19:30

Apologies if someone had already mentioned her, but Victoria Smith has made some really good points about this:

'... “cisness” (that imaginary state of identifying with the sex role stereotypes imposed on one because of one’s sex)...'

'... “cis woman” ... is a way of defining a concept we already know — feminism, woman — because the original term has been co-opted.'

I will edit as I find more!

Edited

'I felt, quite simply, that “cis” allowed no space for those of us who don’t feel particularly comfortable with gender or our sexed bodies, but who still know sex is real and politically important.'

NobbyNobbs · 27/04/2024 07:08

WhereYouLeftIt · 24/04/2024 13:33

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!

God, yes.

Thank you for posting that. It's put so well.