What' wrong with the concept of 'cis'? Reading Gender Hurts

submitted by Spikygrasspod from self.GenderCritical

I’m reading the forbidden text, Gender Hurts by Sheila Jeffries. I should have done it ages ago, but accusations of ‘transphobia’ made me reluctant to engage.



I have been using the terms ‘trans women’ and ‘trans men’, as well as people’s preferred pronouns, out of politeness, as a compromise, and I previously didn’t see the big deal with the word ‘cis’ even though I thought it unnecessary. Jeffries has given me reason to reconsider, however.



She says that the concept of ‘cis’ women demotes us to being just one subcategory of women: women born and raised female, as opposed to women born and raised male. Furthermore, the concepts of cisprivilege and cissexism suggest that we (female women) oppress women who are born and raised male, and that we can expunge our guilt only by supporting their demands. 



These little linguistic reversals include males within feminism, thus precluding feminist analysis of transgender activism as the male demand to both define womanhood, and have the right of access to it.



I don’t yet know whether I want to abandon my polite compromise, but I thought this was an interesting demonstration of how language shapes the way in which we understand things, and this conceptual framework in turn determines how we can do politics (since it determines what kind of politics we can imagine in the first place).

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]fuckingsealions 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think "women" is outmoded, racist, or a slur. It's what I am. Groups get to decide what they're called. Tiny groups don't get to dictate what we call ourselves.

As an example, some Hawaiians call non-Hawaiians or white people "Haoles." It's a term used by a small group of people for an outgroup, and I'm sure it's culturally and practically useful to them. I'm not going to adopt this term for myself to avoid hurting the feelings of Hawaiians, and I don't think they'd ask me to.

[–]Spikygrasspod[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree, it's not outmoded. We'll need 'women' as a concept as long as sex differences remain relevant to our lives, which they always will.

[–]fuckingsealions 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Co-signed!

[–]jelliknight 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"Cis" also means you agree that you were born to be naturally submissive, dainty, and to like ribbons and sparkles.

Gender is the set of social roles, rules and expectations assigned to a sex. "Gender identity" is the idea that a persons 'gender' is an innate trait, something you are born with. Transgender (to a transperson) means they were born with the opposite sexes roles 'innate' to them. Cis means you were born with the 'correct' set of innate gender roles.

If you agree that you are 'cis' then you're saying that you and all women are naturally inclined to wear make up, be sexually attractive to men, be a mother, cook, clean, wear dresses and heels, like the colour pink, be bad at math and spatial reasoning, hate sports and getting dirty, etc. etc. All the things that transpeople say are reasons they "knew" they were a woman.

My personal rules on pronouns and names have become very simple - I won't tell someone elses lies for them. If he wants to say his name is Sheila, and the he's a 'she', that's fine. Free speech. But I won't tell his lies for him. I call it like i see it. "She" is a small lie, but it's still one, and it's one that will be utilized later against other women ("everyone ELSE calls me 'she' you bigot!") and when trying to access our spaces. I don't see a reason to help him with that.

Additionally, I really believe that a lot of these transpeople are mentally ill. They're operating in a delusional state, some as a result of trauma. They really do believe they ARE female, and the doctors and everyone around them confirm that belief. If your friend came up to you and said that he IS King George of England, he fully believes that, and his pronouns are now 'your majesty', would you go along with it 'out of politeness'? Or would that be enabling a harmful delusion? Would you instead, as kindly as possible, say "It might upset you to hear this, but you're not a king, you're not from England and I won't call you 'your majesty' because doing that would harm you."? That's a delusion which really won't do him any physical harm. Enabling a persons delusion of being the opposite sex can REALLY cause them physical harm as they go down the path of 'physical' transition. Your being "polite" could give them lifelong medical problems, or even kill them in the long run.

So ask yourself, are you really 'being polite' or are you just avoiding confrontation?

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm convinced too much exposure to violent and graphic internet porn damages people's brains, too. No one can tell me 24/7/365 porn access isn't part of this "phenomenon"!

[–]chrysthefeminist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"She" is a small lie

I think it's a Big Lie.

[–]Spikygrasspod[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A small lie that will be utilized later against other women. Powerful words, thank you. Um, yes, it is very possible I am avoiding confrontation, a behaviour which, now I think on it, significantly overlaps with being polite.

Gender actually has a range of definitions, including gender as sex, gender as a social role or class, gender as norms and expectations, and gender as a performance or expression. The most recent and rarified definitions of 'gender identity' refer to something even less concrete than gender norms and stereotypes. This includes an 'innate sense' an 'internal map' or 'norm relevancy' - the feeling that gendered norms apply to one. Ultimately, however, they are either based indirectly on sex or one of the more socially concrete definitions of gender, OR they are divorced from these and become self-referential and incoherent. I think of this newer collection of definitions as the 'essence' concept of gender/sex, because they posit a female or feminine 'essence' existing separately from actual biological sex or social femininity.

For anyone who is interested, I can recommend Katharine Jenkins's philosophical paper, "Amelioration and Inclusion: Gender Identity and the Concept of Woman*" in which she attempts to define womanhood according to gender identity, and makes utterly clear her political reasons for doing so; namely, the prioritisation of male voices in feminist spaces.

[–]jelliknight 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Um, yes, it is very possible I am avoiding confrontation, a behaviour which, now I think on it, significantly overlaps with being polite.

Also watch out for "just be kind <3" 'tis a trap for the unwary ;) It's all just female socialization. "Be polite, be nice, be kind, don't make a fuss" in context mean "make everyone else comfortable, your needs and perspectives don't matter."

Yes, there are several definitions of gender. If you watch, they will play a shell game with the definitions; "people should be treated as the gender they identify with", in this sentence "gender" while only used once takes two contradictory meanings - sex, and sex sterotypes.

[–]salty-tomorrow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

great comment.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Exactly. "Woman" is already, historically, the name of a disempowered class. Insisting that we now must use the prefix "cis-" is just salt in the wound, a new layer of compulsory disempowerment. Language is funny that way.

"we can expunge our guilt only by supporting their demands"

There is such a quasi-ritualistic structure to all of this. Have you noticed? We're always being pressed to "confess and atone" for the "original sin" of having been born who and what we are.

ETA examples of that just today:

[–]Spikygrasspod[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And we are, as a result, feeling rather salty.

Indeed, the ritual of confessing one's privilege-guilt is disturbing. I have a real problem with doing politics by admitting personal guilt for society-wide, structural problems. It doesn't make things better, and it distracts from and cloaks actual wrongdoers.

Yeah, I saw JKR's ovaries tweet and the r/PCOS thread. Incredible (in different ways). JK is powerful and witty. Meanwhile on r/PCOS, TRAs were insisting on the use of their preferred language as the only way to meet the standard of minimum human decency.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I imagine -- I hope -- this is peaking a lot of users . . .

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those like numbers give me strength.

[–]Sun_bear 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A 'cis' person is someone who identifies as the 'gender' they were born as. I don't believe in gender and I don't identify as anything, so therefore it's not an appropriate description for me. I doubt anyone outside of the Trans-cult really 'identifies' as a gender. The correct term would just be woman, no prefix!

[–]rusalka 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

According to libfems, a cis person's gender identity matches their born sex, but when did we all agree on the existence of some intangible, undefinable concept of "gender identity"? If we agreed with our gender identity, and thus the roles associated with it, then there wouldn't even be a feminist movement to begin with. We have always strived to liberate ourselves from the constraints of what society determines a woman should be. We can be anything, anyone. The concept of being "cis" undermines feminist goals, by suggesting that there are other components to being a woman other than being female, which can only be based on sexist stereotypes. They also say "cis" people are comfortable in their bodies, and yet I don't know a single woman who doesn't have complex issues with her body as it relates to her sex, who hasn't starved or harmed herself in some way. It's a ludicrous term.

[–]Spikygrasspod[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right. It rankles, they way they accuse us of being essentialists and not feminist. It stings with sheer absurdity.

[–]SharpTomorrow 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

claiming you are "cisgender" means you are accepting gender identity at first place, it's a trojan horse in a discussion. You can't be critical of gender identity if you accept its idioms.

[–]Spikygrasspod[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very true. However, either TRAs disagree on the meaning of 'cis', or they're trained in the motte & bailey manoeuvre, because if you deny having a gender identity, many will change course and instead say that 'cis' means 'not trans'.

[–]our_team_is_winning 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

<women born and raised female, as opposed to women born and raised male. > Why isn't the whole world saying that is just stupid? Seriously. To me a woman raised male would mean the family had a daughter but they needed a son for inheritance or something (might be a medieval fairytale...) so they cut her hair short, dressed her like the boys, and tried to pass her off as a male -- knowing full well she wasn't. In theory a female could be "raised" male, conforming to culturally masculine ways, but she was not born male. How is this even a thing? Seriously. I look at all the ink spilled over this topic and think "my dog is actually a horse. He was listed as a dachshund at the vet, but really he's a horse. He just FEELS like a horse." It's just as stupid.

[–]Spikygrasspod[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why indeed. I feel that the TRAs use a lot of very confusing language and rhetoric to conceal the core idealogical and politic goals they're going for, because if they asked outright, using ordinary lanugage, a lot of people would say 'no'. So everything needs to be couched in careful terms and phrases that borrow from popular social justice movements. They frame agreement as the morally progressive thing, frame all disagreement as hate speech, and generally shift ideas and words around so that people who feel uneasy find it difficult to articulate why. And people who aren't that invested just look at the slogans, think they sound nice, and agree, not looking into the deeper ideological position that those slogans express. Then the attitudes out sheer outrage and hurt also provide a guideline as to how bystanders should react. How many people have you heard say "oh, she's a T*RF!" without even knowing what it means? Clarity can only help us.

[–]PassionateIntensity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To me "cis" means I agree with or feel comfortable with gender stereotypes placed on women, and that defies my entire LIFE. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's bordering offensive.