Cis is now labelled as a possible slur on X

[User1979289]

https://twitter.com/xdaily/status/1790714602101285101

OK point taken. So do you think manipulation of language should effectively be banned? Or do you think pointing out the manipulation whenever it happens is more effective? I'm in the second camp in case it's not clear.

I was on the liberal side of this debate (I can't control how other people refer to me, cis can just mean 'not trans') but then I decided to Google....

😱

These 'definitions' (which are in actual dictionaries FFS) turn us all into believers and people with DSDs (who can change their birth certificates by way of a correction) into trans people. Outrageous.

I still think the concept of not-trans has its uses. In conversations with trans friends, about hospital wards for instance, we use the word 'women' to mean completely different things, and ambiguity is only avoided because we already know each other's views. We don't have that luxury when, say, interpreting a Labour Party statement.

It’s a croc of shit basically. It means you are the gender you were assigned at birth .. so a woman is female, a man is male. 🙄🙄🙄 So a cis woman is .. just a woman 🤷🏻‍♀️

These 'definitions' (which are in actual dictionaries FFS) turn us all into believers and people with DSDs (who can change their birth certificates by way of a correction) into trans people. Outrageous.
I would argue that that would come under under forcing your belief on other people and society rearranging itself in order to conform to that belief. That, I think, is where the problem lies.

I think we’ve taken the wrong approach to gender dysphoria which is a minority condition

Hugely so, to detriment of women and children

Gender ideology language is a power play to divide society by gender not sex

My preference would be to take stock of the harms, remove the GRA and expand each sex class to all representation. That would render ideological words defunct.

In the meantime I’ll take actions as X has taken

GOOD! I didn’t agree to be labelled a made up term to validate other people ( AGP men)

If someone says you are a Pisces, it means you were born at a certain time on a certain day. It doesn't mean you believe in astrology. Even if you both agree that your salient character traits are those of a typical Piscean, it doesn't mean that you believe that you are like that because of the alignment of various heavenly bodies at the time of your birth.

Being "cisgender" means, at its most innocuous, that you have a gender identity - an inner sense of being female or male - which aligns with your sex.

It's a tenet of GI that everyone has a gender identity. That you only think you don't have a gender identity because it's congruent with your sex/outward appearance. But this state of gender congruence can be described as "non-trans". There is no need to use "cisgender".

Just because someone isn't intending it as a slur doesn't mean it's ok though. The meaning of the word is such that using it even "in good faith" is loaded with assumptions that many people would feel insulted by. People are at liberty to use it of themselves as an individual if they choose to but should never say either "you are cis" or "we are cis" for anyone who hasn't explicitly adopted it.

I think in reality there as few truly "cis" people as there are trans identifying people. The vast majority of people don't identify with the sexist stereotypes of either sex and have more important things to be getting on with than deciding to define themselves according to which bucket of stereotypes suits them best.

It's like having a special word for people whose auras are not star-shaped, having previously established that anyone who declares their aura to be star-shaped gets special privileges and can overide the normal rules that apply to most people, and which comes with a list of extra-special attributes that people with star-shaped auras have. In such a world using that word of "not one of the special ones" to describe someone naturally becomes a slur.

They can argue that "trans women" should be accommodated as "non-trans" women in NHS wards. They are saying exactly what they mean.

We found it a lot harder to argue that "transwomen"/"trans women" shouldn't be included in women's spaces, when what we meant was "men".

And also, schadenfreude. Laughing my arse off.

Lately, along with all the encouraging threads, I keep getting the feeling that the game is up.

It’s quite lovely after all this time.

Oh I agree about and share the schadenfreude . It's a much under-rated emotion.

As for star signs and gender identity, well everyone I've ever met who believed in astrology, assigned the personality characteristics of my star sign to me even though I think it's absurd. And every Christian I know believes that I have a soul, even though I don't have a faith. I think they have a right to believe those things and to express them, and that when they do so, it says nothing about me, only about them.

It is and I really hope so

Especially when a fair few worked so hard to tell women to stop speaking

Exactly, Floisme - that is what I am saying. Man/male = non-trans = Piscean = person with a soul. They can express their beliefs about you but don't insist that you share them. "Cisgender" isn't like that.

I'm not following you about how 'Cisgender' is any different @Snowypeaks but I'll read your posts again, although probably a bit later when I've got more time.

If I were to call someone the n-word, I would quite rightly be vilified, I feel calling a woman cis, is the same. It is an intentional slur by some people and ignorant handmaidening by others.

That word has the whole weight of history behind it. It is used to degrade and to dehumanise. 'Cis' is a nonsensical, made up term that didn't exist outside of the Chemistry lab until a few years ago.

And now I'm off to try and get my head around @Snowypeaks points.

I find it offensive not just nonsensical

Yes but do we have an inalienable right not to be offended?

And now I've really got to sign off for the time being.

I’m pretty sure I can say I disagree with gender ideology and its language and see if I can get somewhere on that

It seems to be the case that I can, albeit slowly

For me it's a bit like an extremist Christian referring to non-Christians as 'Satanists' because according to their ideology if you don't follow God, you follow Satan. As an atheist I can see that there are some limited contexts where using 'non-Christian' as a category is useful, despite it being very broad. But I'll argue strongly that 'Satanist' is not an equivalent term - I don't believe in Satan (or gender identity) at all.

Some random extremist on Twitter calling me a Satanist? I might not like it, but free speech, whatever. However, when the language 'Christians and Satanists' starts showing up in all sorts of official documents and being talked about as if it's completely accepted terminology? I'm going to have a problem.

I think in reality there as few truly "cis" people as there are trans identifying people.

There are only 'trans' people and 'non-trans' people. No need for 'cis' anything!

People and trans people would be more accurate imo. Otherwise we continue to centre a minute, self identifying group of activists.

As I've said, I value my free speech to refer to men as men too much to want to curtail the free speech of others, however offensive or annoying. If all offensive terms were banned however then I'd expect "cis" to be on the list then.

I think the difference is a man is a man and that is an indisputable fact however cis isn't a fact for the vast majority of people. It does mean more than just not trans and it is a loaded term.

Yes I know that perfectly well, but it's religious language for some people, and in a free speech landscape I don't think religious language should be banned.