I came across a comment on Threads which asked (probably not in good faith, given the phrasing) why “cis” people felt term didn’t represent their “lived experience.” I pointed out that it’s not that people who dislike it feel it doesn’t represent them; it’s that the term is redundant. For a woman who is “cis”, “woman” encompasses everything you already need to know and all those things are reasonably assumed. The term adds no new information *except* that the person isn’t trans. And there’s no reason to know a person’s trans status unless they are trans.
I argued that this redundancy is actually inherent in the phrase “trans women are women.” “Woman” and “cis woman” are synonymous already. “Trans women are women” is the argument that “trans woman” should also be synonymous with “woman.”
But if it really is the case that trans women are women, then why are such qualifiers required at all? It’s not “cis” women insisting on it; it’s trans women. So, what gives?
I suspect it’s because trans identified people know perfectly well that this qualifier is required for them. It absolutely represents new and vital information about a person that man or woman by itself doesn’t. This feels awkward; it sets them apart from the group they want to be a social part of. So insisting on the use of the qualifier “cis” for everyone else makes it seem like a qualifier is normal and necessary for *everyone* when it isn’t.
This used to be the out loud argument for announcing your pronouns too. If everyone does it, it’s less weird for the people who feel like they *have* to.
But ultimately the ask is too big. It’s one thing to ask me to call you a different name; no big deal. It’s something else entirely to ask me to think about and call *myself* something different just so someone else can manage their own emotions about themselves.
Helen, you always make us think. Thanks for the posting by Chanel, and the one by Sam Harris which shows that giving a name to non-belief is an insidious attempt to tar it with the same brush as having beliefs. It took me only a moment to recognize a similar intent in the word ‘cis’. I agree we shouldn’t ban the word ‘cis’ even though it’s used like a ‘scarlet letter’. But we can refuse to wear it.
I am a bit slow on the uptake when it comes to 'social' issues so it has taken me some time to appreciate the power of words and the implicit 'framings' that underlie particular word choices.
In a way you kind of exploited this yourself with your 'hoax' work in which the particular word (salad) choices you made were the difference between publication and rejection of the (deliberately) absurd ideas you promoted to drive home your point.
Coming from a physics/maths background it has always been a bit more awkward for me to accept any kind of definitional 'flexibility' in the way concepts get constructed for use in social discourse. Take something like "systemic racism", for example. Is this a property of the entire system or just *specific* parts of that system? Where is the racism, exactly, and how can it be measured? These are the kinds of questions that plague me when I'm trying to get to grips with such an idea (or as I would call it, a hypothesis).
I have similar difficulties understanding words like 'gender' or 'gender identity'. I do not properly know what the word 'gender' means - the many 'definitions' I've looked at all seem heavily dependent on the notion of a biological sex binary and are thus somewhat 'circular' - and I've yet to be able to take one of these 'definitions' of gender to understand, exactly, what is meant when someone is said to be of the 'gender' gender fluid, or the 'gender' eunuch, for example.
I think we see the same problem when confronting words like 'cis and 'trans'.
If we're categorizing by biological sex class then we have (biological) men and women in different boxes, so to speak. If you then further sub-divide the boxes into 'cis' and 'trans' we would have in the women's box women who consider themselves to be women (i.e. cis) and women who consider themselves to be men (i.e. trans).
But this isn't (clearly) what is meant by these terms cis and trans. They refer to 'gender'. So the categorization here, the separation into 'boxes', is on the basis of gender. Which then means that people who consider themselves to be neither women (gender) or man (gender) do not even go into these boxes at all.
What a glorious mess.
If we do this 'gender' box split then in the women's (gender) box we have *both* women (sex) AND men (sex). And now we can use the cis and trans subdivision in the way it is conventionally meant.
The confusion here (is it deliberate?) is created by using the same words (man or woman) to mean 2 different things.
If you're working from a sex categorization perspective then cis and trans would not be a slur because ALL the people in one category are of a definite sex. Trans would, then, identify those biological women who consider themselves to be trans.
What we actually have 'engineered' for ourselves with all of these uses and abuses of words and their meaning are many instances of what are category errors - and it's no surprise that so many of us are mightily confused.
This confusion is probably not going to go away any time soon because the words and their various (different) meanings have become kind of baked in - but it's always important to clarify in any discussion whether one is talking about man/woman (sex) or man/woman (gender).
This confusion is another reason why it's *essential* not to get too hung up on the notion of 'slurs' and to go all a bit goose-steppy and demand censorship and the like - whether that's on the 'pro' or 'anti' side of this issue. We need the space and freedom to talk about these things, to clarify these twisted and tortuous concepts, without rancour (although I have to admit I often do very much enjoy a bit of verbal assault and battery - and expect no less from my 'opponents').
Anyway - not much clarity here from me - but I'm always grateful for *your* clarity and principled defence of liberal values. Another excellent article.
I won't accept "cis" for myself. I am "normal". The difference is between "normal" and "trans". If we accept "cis", that means that "trans" is an alternative choice or existance. It is not. It is not normal, and it is delusional. So I go with "normal".
Since there is no such thing as a trans person (Boys can't be girls, and girls can't be boys. Men can't be women, and women can't be men), Cis doesn't mean anything either.
In this case, Cis means normal, as opposed to trans-identifying, meaning abnormal.
I don’t really care for” cis” because it supposes that trans is an alternative to normal people. As if it is on an equal footing , which it isn’t. Trans is a mental disorder .
I will never use the word “ cis” to describe a normal man or woman.
It’s also one of the ways the trans cult is gaining power by changing our language!
"Cis" sure is an extremely annoying and stupid word when used for gender and it is not harmless, but it's not really a slur I think. I think it's more of a religious term. I am only "cis" to those who believe in trans ideology, just like I am only an "infidel" or a "heathen" to specific religious groups.
Yes, I've been addressing that for 10 years. I just worked out the number of people I have supported with not getting fired for gender critical views since I started doing that in 2020 is 397.
I once tried to test various online censorship protocols by coming up with the most ambiguous poem I could make up. It described a character named Fanny from Scunthorpe doing various things including being very stingy, handling a bundle of firewood and doing something with a large rooster. This reminds me to dig it up and run it against all the newfangled AI algorithms. A fun XMAS coming up...
I'll admit to not having read the entire article (due to time and attention constraints), but I noticed, about the word cis, " No, it just means ‘not trans'". So how about substituting 'non-cis' for 'trans'? Of course, a 'trans' child is more accurately referred to as gender-confused (or activist-afflicted).
Until recently I didn't really know what "cis" meant. And now that I do I don't understand the necessity for this term at all. I don't consider it a slur, but I'm a "Man". This is the word used to describe my gender. Why the need to make any changes by adding cis to it? If you're trans, call yourself a "trans man/woman". The fact that the vast majority of us aren't trans and use biologically accurate terms to describe ourselves is not a problem.
You appear to be drawing protective lines around, let's say, tolerance and reasonableness, and that makes sense. It is, well, quite reasonable.
But is it possible that once we accept the categorical battlefield defined by identity justice, the battle is already over?
One could argue that it is a bit late (though “reasonable”) to defend the use of terms like Cis, when the division psychology of identity groups has already taken a firm grasp of everyone's brain stem.
I could give up on defending liberalism and freedom of belief and speech, yes, and then I wouldn't have written this. Or anything.
Yes, I don't suggest you accept any categorical battlefields. I've been addressing it for a long time critically.
I am only saying we should not ban *other people* from using their own words. If I ever accept that, this will mean that I've given up my battle which is for liberalism.
I see your point. But there does seem to be a gray zone between "banning" the term and refusing to be labeled by someone else's identity justice argot.
Not really. We must be able to refuse to listen to anybody we don't want to listen to and if people harass you when you've done all that's reasonable to avoid them, you must be able to press charges. But you cannot demand people think in categories that label you as you wish to be labelled any more than a trans activist can demand you think and speak the way they want you to. We all have to accept that other people will believe and say things that includes references to our demographic that we don't like. This is part of being a human living among humans with a range of belief systems and they are only words so we can survive.
When you say that "we must be able to refuse to listen to anybody we don't want to listen to," that's quite similar to what I mean by the gray zone. I suspect we are mostly in agreement. When someone says, "i categorically object to your use of the term cis," they are not preventing speech, but they are not accepting it.
Helen prioritizes the concepts over the contexts, I feel. One result of that is that she underplays the long term, manipulative strategy of the trans movement and the malevolent power of its protectors. When faced with that kind of alliance I feel this is not benign. I feel it is threatening. Some spiders I will guide gently out of the window. Others I will stamp on.
I prioritise preserving liberal freedoms. That's a higher order value. If we lose that, we are all in big trouble. If you won the fight this time and controlled speech so that no-one can say 'cis' what grounds will you have when the pendulum swings the other way again to say "Let women speak!" You have eroded the laws and norms which protected speech. Whoever has the power gets to say who is allowed to say what. It's been woke that's had that power and still does although it is declining and police have been investigating people for gender critical views. It's not as though you don't know the consequences of not having free speech protections. I think it's madness to try to undermine them further.
But you can’t protect anything if you have no power. You get power by demonstrating the meaning of concepts to all people and helping them understand the stakes. That is what Chris Rufo does. I do not disagree with you and I know you deal with real issues. some would say that higher order issues have been lost by liberals (centre left) already. Look at this Labour government. Thanks for replying.
Whether it's a slur or not, it's not a word I'm keen to hear. I don't think social media platforms should ban the word (or ban slurs) but I'm also usually not going to stick around in conversations where the word is used in the intended sense. Or at least I'll avoid using it myself and prefer "normal" or something like that.
I came across a comment on Threads which asked (probably not in good faith, given the phrasing) why “cis” people felt term didn’t represent their “lived experience.” I pointed out that it’s not that people who dislike it feel it doesn’t represent them; it’s that the term is redundant. For a woman who is “cis”, “woman” encompasses everything you already need to know and all those things are reasonably assumed. The term adds no new information *except* that the person isn’t trans. And there’s no reason to know a person’s trans status unless they are trans.
I argued that this redundancy is actually inherent in the phrase “trans women are women.” “Woman” and “cis woman” are synonymous already. “Trans women are women” is the argument that “trans woman” should also be synonymous with “woman.”
But if it really is the case that trans women are women, then why are such qualifiers required at all? It’s not “cis” women insisting on it; it’s trans women. So, what gives?
I suspect it’s because trans identified people know perfectly well that this qualifier is required for them. It absolutely represents new and vital information about a person that man or woman by itself doesn’t. This feels awkward; it sets them apart from the group they want to be a social part of. So insisting on the use of the qualifier “cis” for everyone else makes it seem like a qualifier is normal and necessary for *everyone* when it isn’t.
This used to be the out loud argument for announcing your pronouns too. If everyone does it, it’s less weird for the people who feel like they *have* to.
But ultimately the ask is too big. It’s one thing to ask me to call you a different name; no big deal. It’s something else entirely to ask me to think about and call *myself* something different just so someone else can manage their own emotions about themselves.
Helen, you always make us think. Thanks for the posting by Chanel, and the one by Sam Harris which shows that giving a name to non-belief is an insidious attempt to tar it with the same brush as having beliefs. It took me only a moment to recognize a similar intent in the word ‘cis’. I agree we shouldn’t ban the word ‘cis’ even though it’s used like a ‘scarlet letter’. But we can refuse to wear it.
I am a bit slow on the uptake when it comes to 'social' issues so it has taken me some time to appreciate the power of words and the implicit 'framings' that underlie particular word choices.
In a way you kind of exploited this yourself with your 'hoax' work in which the particular word (salad) choices you made were the difference between publication and rejection of the (deliberately) absurd ideas you promoted to drive home your point.
Coming from a physics/maths background it has always been a bit more awkward for me to accept any kind of definitional 'flexibility' in the way concepts get constructed for use in social discourse. Take something like "systemic racism", for example. Is this a property of the entire system or just *specific* parts of that system? Where is the racism, exactly, and how can it be measured? These are the kinds of questions that plague me when I'm trying to get to grips with such an idea (or as I would call it, a hypothesis).
I have similar difficulties understanding words like 'gender' or 'gender identity'. I do not properly know what the word 'gender' means - the many 'definitions' I've looked at all seem heavily dependent on the notion of a biological sex binary and are thus somewhat 'circular' - and I've yet to be able to take one of these 'definitions' of gender to understand, exactly, what is meant when someone is said to be of the 'gender' gender fluid, or the 'gender' eunuch, for example.
I think we see the same problem when confronting words like 'cis and 'trans'.
If we're categorizing by biological sex class then we have (biological) men and women in different boxes, so to speak. If you then further sub-divide the boxes into 'cis' and 'trans' we would have in the women's box women who consider themselves to be women (i.e. cis) and women who consider themselves to be men (i.e. trans).
But this isn't (clearly) what is meant by these terms cis and trans. They refer to 'gender'. So the categorization here, the separation into 'boxes', is on the basis of gender. Which then means that people who consider themselves to be neither women (gender) or man (gender) do not even go into these boxes at all.
What a glorious mess.
If we do this 'gender' box split then in the women's (gender) box we have *both* women (sex) AND men (sex). And now we can use the cis and trans subdivision in the way it is conventionally meant.
The confusion here (is it deliberate?) is created by using the same words (man or woman) to mean 2 different things.
If you're working from a sex categorization perspective then cis and trans would not be a slur because ALL the people in one category are of a definite sex. Trans would, then, identify those biological women who consider themselves to be trans.
What we actually have 'engineered' for ourselves with all of these uses and abuses of words and their meaning are many instances of what are category errors - and it's no surprise that so many of us are mightily confused.
This confusion is probably not going to go away any time soon because the words and their various (different) meanings have become kind of baked in - but it's always important to clarify in any discussion whether one is talking about man/woman (sex) or man/woman (gender).
This confusion is another reason why it's *essential* not to get too hung up on the notion of 'slurs' and to go all a bit goose-steppy and demand censorship and the like - whether that's on the 'pro' or 'anti' side of this issue. We need the space and freedom to talk about these things, to clarify these twisted and tortuous concepts, without rancour (although I have to admit I often do very much enjoy a bit of verbal assault and battery - and expect no less from my 'opponents').
Anyway - not much clarity here from me - but I'm always grateful for *your* clarity and principled defence of liberal values. Another excellent article.
I won't accept "cis" for myself. I am "normal". The difference is between "normal" and "trans". If we accept "cis", that means that "trans" is an alternative choice or existance. It is not. It is not normal, and it is delusional. So I go with "normal".
Since there is no such thing as a trans person (Boys can't be girls, and girls can't be boys. Men can't be women, and women can't be men), Cis doesn't mean anything either.
In this case, Cis means normal, as opposed to trans-identifying, meaning abnormal.
It's a cry for mental health help.
I don’t really care for” cis” because it supposes that trans is an alternative to normal people. As if it is on an equal footing , which it isn’t. Trans is a mental disorder .
I will never use the word “ cis” to describe a normal man or woman.
It’s also one of the ways the trans cult is gaining power by changing our language!
"Cis" sure is an extremely annoying and stupid word when used for gender and it is not harmless, but it's not really a slur I think. I think it's more of a religious term. I am only "cis" to those who believe in trans ideology, just like I am only an "infidel" or a "heathen" to specific religious groups.
The more common action is the cancelling or boycotting or outing of people who choose not to use it and do not want to be labelled in that way.
Yes, I've been addressing that for 10 years. I just worked out the number of people I have supported with not getting fired for gender critical views since I started doing that in 2020 is 397.
I once tried to test various online censorship protocols by coming up with the most ambiguous poem I could make up. It described a character named Fanny from Scunthorpe doing various things including being very stingy, handling a bundle of firewood and doing something with a large rooster. This reminds me to dig it up and run it against all the newfangled AI algorithms. A fun XMAS coming up...
I'll admit to not having read the entire article (due to time and attention constraints), but I noticed, about the word cis, " No, it just means ‘not trans'". So how about substituting 'non-cis' for 'trans'? Of course, a 'trans' child is more accurately referred to as gender-confused (or activist-afflicted).
Until recently I didn't really know what "cis" meant. And now that I do I don't understand the necessity for this term at all. I don't consider it a slur, but I'm a "Man". This is the word used to describe my gender. Why the need to make any changes by adding cis to it? If you're trans, call yourself a "trans man/woman". The fact that the vast majority of us aren't trans and use biologically accurate terms to describe ourselves is not a problem.
You appear to be drawing protective lines around, let's say, tolerance and reasonableness, and that makes sense. It is, well, quite reasonable.
But is it possible that once we accept the categorical battlefield defined by identity justice, the battle is already over?
One could argue that it is a bit late (though “reasonable”) to defend the use of terms like Cis, when the division psychology of identity groups has already taken a firm grasp of everyone's brain stem.
I could give up on defending liberalism and freedom of belief and speech, yes, and then I wouldn't have written this. Or anything.
Yes, I don't suggest you accept any categorical battlefields. I've been addressing it for a long time critically.
I am only saying we should not ban *other people* from using their own words. If I ever accept that, this will mean that I've given up my battle which is for liberalism.
I see your point. But there does seem to be a gray zone between "banning" the term and refusing to be labeled by someone else's identity justice argot.
Not really. We must be able to refuse to listen to anybody we don't want to listen to and if people harass you when you've done all that's reasonable to avoid them, you must be able to press charges. But you cannot demand people think in categories that label you as you wish to be labelled any more than a trans activist can demand you think and speak the way they want you to. We all have to accept that other people will believe and say things that includes references to our demographic that we don't like. This is part of being a human living among humans with a range of belief systems and they are only words so we can survive.
When you say that "we must be able to refuse to listen to anybody we don't want to listen to," that's quite similar to what I mean by the gray zone. I suspect we are mostly in agreement. When someone says, "i categorically object to your use of the term cis," they are not preventing speech, but they are not accepting it.
Yes, absolutely.
X is unusable at this point.
Helen prioritizes the concepts over the contexts, I feel. One result of that is that she underplays the long term, manipulative strategy of the trans movement and the malevolent power of its protectors. When faced with that kind of alliance I feel this is not benign. I feel it is threatening. Some spiders I will guide gently out of the window. Others I will stamp on.
I prioritise preserving liberal freedoms. That's a higher order value. If we lose that, we are all in big trouble. If you won the fight this time and controlled speech so that no-one can say 'cis' what grounds will you have when the pendulum swings the other way again to say "Let women speak!" You have eroded the laws and norms which protected speech. Whoever has the power gets to say who is allowed to say what. It's been woke that's had that power and still does although it is declining and police have been investigating people for gender critical views. It's not as though you don't know the consequences of not having free speech protections. I think it's madness to try to undermine them further.
But you can’t protect anything if you have no power. You get power by demonstrating the meaning of concepts to all people and helping them understand the stakes. That is what Chris Rufo does. I do not disagree with you and I know you deal with real issues. some would say that higher order issues have been lost by liberals (centre left) already. Look at this Labour government. Thanks for replying.
Whether it's a slur or not, it's not a word I'm keen to hear. I don't think social media platforms should ban the word (or ban slurs) but I'm also usually not going to stick around in conversations where the word is used in the intended sense. Or at least I'll avoid using it myself and prefer "normal" or something like that.
Can't we all just stop using X?