Cis is now labelled as a possible slur on X

[User1979289]

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

People and trans people would be more accurate imo.

True - I like that better too - most people are just normal male or female people!

Following on from that logic, there's no need for 'cis' anything, as everyone is either a man/woman or a transman/transwoman.

The loud shouting group of males should be renamed. Trans identifying males can be known as 'Cis-Men'.

Cishet is often used as a slur by the Q brigade for boring heterosexual people. I know it's short for cisgender heterosexual but if you have cishet then you could have transhet which would be a gay man or lesbian

I saw this on Twitter. It's a Latin prefix for many contexts, cisgender being just one of them.

It roughly translates to "on the same side of" and is the opposite of "trans".

Q brigade???

I've read your posts again @Snowypeaksand I think my main disagreement is over this point:
Because "Cis" says something about your beliefs. It says that you believe in gender ideology and if used about you, it says that you subscribe to feminine/masculine gender stereotypes.

Not to me. As far as I'm concerned, 'cis' tells me that the person who uses the word believes in gender ideology but I don't agree that it says anything whatsoever about my beliefs. In my view, that line is only crossed if I and/or society as a whole are compelled to speak or act in accordance with that belief, whether that's by stating pronouns, rewriting clinical guidance, giving up woman-only spaces and services, etc.

Apologies if I'm still misunderstanding you.

I understand the viewpoint that free speech works both ways.

But for me, it was more about the entire concept becoming mainstream.

There was a point where the ideological language was creeping into MSM. A lot of places accept the concept of cis gender, and therefore the language is routinely used. To me, it's as offensive as collectively calling women totty or something.

If it was just confined to a few sexiest adherents, that would be one thing, but it wasn't. It was becoming normalised.

So I'm glad it's recognised as deeply offensive.

Ive been mulling over the free speech arguments around this, and trying to define what I think is different about cis vs naming biological sex.

I agree, it's not about the 'right to not be offended ' (which doesn't exist in any case), its about manipulation of language in order to normalise a particular narrative. Its use is therefore actively damaging some other groups in society ie women, its not simply a neutral label.

As a pp said, whether or not you agree with a particular definition of woman or man, biological sex does exist and is observable and measurable. This I think makes it a fundamentally different concept to a contested belief. We can argue over what words should be used to describe male and female these days, but I can't see a good, logical argument for doing away with being able to describe those biological groups- because they exist and sometimes we need to be able to talk about it (for healthcare, women's rights, etc). It's not like the only purpose of correctly sexing someone is to piss off trans people - often its necessary for safety. Cis is not necessary in this way, its a largely redundant signifier of belief (if you need to specify in an unambiguous way due to the current mangling of language, you could say male bodied or not trans) .

Of course people have the right to describe the world as they see it, but I think this right ends when you are specifically describing others who don't share your world view rather than just describing abstract concepts.

I think the analogy between christians and satanists / atheists is a good one. Insisting that someone is 'cis' or must have a gender identity is like asking an atheist which God they don't believe in, or insisting on calling atheists 'heathens' or satanists - both religious terms. I would hope that most if not all religious people at least recognise that atheists exist (even if they think they're wrong).

The issue for me with cis is that it's being applied to people who don't accept that label. If one group in society has the right to define themselves as something, in this case trans, surely that right also extends to everyone else? Why isn't forcing people to accept 'cis' just as bad as misgendering? It seems to be giving additional rights to trans people at the expense of women, and I don't see why we should accept that.

It's not about authoritarian policing of language to avoid offence, its more complex than that.

Edit for typo

As it should be!

I don't agree that the act of someone using a particular word to describe me is forcing me to accept that word.

I think being asked to confirm my gender identity is forced acceptance and that's where I draw a line. But I don't think I can control how someone perceives me.

Also it doesn't mean I wouldn't challenge anyone using the word. It's trying to control and restrict its use that I'm really not comfortable with.

Essentially I think someone should have the right to say it about me, and equally I should have the right to tell them I consider it a quasi religious term about an absurd, regressive ideology, and where to stick it.

I do see where you're coming from, but thanks to #nodebate we haven't had the right to tell people where to stick it - the playing field isn't level.

And since its part of the trans lingo that's become the dominant narrative, it's been accepted as the norm by all sorts of institutions who should know better, damaging women's rights in the process.

So now we're in the situation where my previous work menopause policy (and other policies) refer to 'cis women' and my requests to remove this have been ignored because 'its technical language and everyone knows what it means' . Meanwhile we're not allowed to use 'female bodied' because 'people won't know what it means' 🙄 and policies made for women have been expanded and watered down to include males.

So the normalisation of cis has led to the normalisation of the othering / ignoring of women in official policies.

It's not harmless, and insisting on philosophical purity at this point when women are already on the back foot (to put it mildly) is damaging our cause further.

Like I've said, @NameChange0101010101 I see what you're describing as compelled acceptance of gender ideology, and I totally agree that crosses a line. I just don't agree that it's the same thing as someone using a word to describe me, even when it's a word I reject.

Anyway I'm just repeating the same point over and over now so I think I'm going to bow out. Thanks all for the discussion.

Thank you for posting, your points have been food for thought.

You're not misunderstanding me but I'll have one last go at persuading you. I appreciate the responses.

I have to disagree again because a cisgender woman = a woman 1) who has a gender identity congruent with her female body (ie not trans), 2) who embraces feminine gender stereotypes, 3) who considers herself one of two types of woman (the female kind) and 4) who accepts the validity of the cis-trans privilege/power axis. That is what the word means in gender ideology and it is saying something about your beliefs, though you would reject all that.
A pp upthread gave a great analogy - it's as if Christians referred to atheists not as nonbelievers, or even heathen, but as Satanists. If "cis" only meant "has congruent gender identity", I would agree that it doesn't necessarily say anything about your beliefs.

For a sex realist, calling someone a man is a neutral description, but within the "institution" of gender ideology, it's insulting and inaccurate if the person does not have a masculine gender identity. But...it is not pejorative and it is accurate, to a sex realist.

Cisgender is pejorative, and not accurate even within gender ideology. Because how can a woman who rejects feminine gender stereotypes and does not accept men as women, or the cis-trans power axis be said to be cisgender? What is actually meant is that this woman is not trans. The use of "cis" is an attempt to force the false concept of the cis-trans power axis.

And to your final point, I believe that the push to stop gender ideology being used as the basis of law and policy starts with restricting the use of genderist language to situations where it actually applies and not casting women as villains as a default position, which is the main function of the word "cisgender".

Maybe the line I draw between expressing your own beliefs (free speech, freedom of expression) and imputing beliefs to others is just a "me" thing. But I do think using "cisgender" is needlessly provocative in debates on a public platform. I'm not arguing that the word should be banned on TwiX or in general. If genderists want to use it about themselves, or about others who accept the label, then they can knock themselves out and "cis" away to their heart's content.

But for me, it was more about the entire concept becoming mainstream.

There was a point where the ideological language was creeping into MSM. A lot of places accept the concept of cis gender, and therefore the language is routinely used. To me, it's as offensive as collectively calling women totty or something.

If it was just confined to a few sexiest adherents, that would be one thing, but it wasn't. It was becoming normalised.

I agree, I'm just uncomfortable with blanket banning it, unless everything wrong and offensive to anyone is banned. Which I don't see as the kind of world I want to live in.

So now we're in the situation where my previous work menopause policy (and other policies) refer to 'cis women' and my requests to remove this have been ignored because 'its technical language and everyone knows what it means'

I would have had no idea what it means until I read this thread.

I would have probably assumed it doesn't include me, as I'm just a normal woman and not some strange subset of 'cis' women. So i probably wouldn't have turned up to the event!

I agree with that, too.

I'm hoping that, given many people find it offensive, it will just die out.

It means the person using this term is talking shite.