It is if your goal is to create a divide between the two groups. There is a reason this kind of classification isn't used with minorities, e.g. we say "hetero" instead of "non-hono".
It's different though, in that this adjective redefines the noun it's being applied to, away from the usual understanding.
Consider "homosexual woman" and "heterosexual woman". Both describe an aspect of "woman" - her sexual orientation - without changing what "woman" means.
Compare "cis woman" and "trans woman" though. The former refers to a female and the latter to a male. This changes "woman" away from the sex-based definition that the vast majority of people understand, to one where a subset of men claim to be women.
So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold.
This is also why in radical feminist circles they prefer terms like "trans-identified male" instead of "trans woman", to avoid adopting the linguistic contortions of the oppressor.
You can find differences everywhere if you look hard enough. The difference you identified is not objective, it's only your opinion that it "redefines the noun". I don't think that it does, at least not more than "homo"/"hetero" does.
> So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold.
You'll have to prove that most people don't hold this view, until you do it's pure conjecture. And you will also have to explain why banning the word isn't a bad thing for trans people who do subscribe to this world view, as that is the topic we're talking about.
We know that most people don't hold that view because that's what polling reveals, even in the countries where law and policy have been changed in favour of that view.
To further explain my linguistic point though, it's really down to an ambiguity as to whether "trans woman" and "trans man" are meant as compound nouns (in the open form, as the closed form, e.g. "transwoman", doesn't have this ambiguity) or noun phrases.
As compound nouns, these have the sense of a man or woman who wishes to be the opposite. That is, a "trans woman" is a man who desires to be a woman, and a "trans man" is a woman who wants to be a man. They may even end up believing themselves to be so, based on that desire.
As noun phrases, these apply the adjective "trans" as if a subset of the group the noun is describing. So a "trans woman" is understood as a woman who is male, and a "trans man" as man who is female. But this only works if you also believe that "woman" and "man" are "gender identity" categories that one can identify into, rather than based on the material biological reality of being, respectively, female or male.
Introducing "cis" removes that ambiguity, implying noun phrases rather than compound nouns, and thus implies acceptance of the "gender identity" belief. When people object to the terms "cis woman" and "cis man", they are expressing a rejection of this belief system.
> We know that most people don't hold that view because that's what polling reveals, even in the countries where law and policy have been changed in favour of that view.
You have made this statement twice now, but that is not proof itself. Can you share the polls you are referencing?
> To further explain my linguistic point though, it's really down to an ambiguity as to whether "trans woman" and "trans man" are meant as compound nouns (in the open form, as the closed form, e.g. "transwoman", doesn't have this ambiguity) or noun phrases.
> As compound nouns, these have the sense of a man or woman who wishes to be the opposite. That is, a "trans woman" is a man who desires to be a woman, and a "trans man" is a woman who wants to be a man. They may even end up believing themselves to be so, based on that desire.
This is not objective truth, it is your subjective opinion.
> As noun phrases, these apply the adjective "trans" as if a subset of the group the noun is describing. So a "trans woman" is understood as a woman who is male, and a "trans man" as man who is female. But this only works if you also believe that "woman" and "man" are "gender identity" categories that one can identify into, rather than based on the material biological reality of being, respectively, female or male.
Yes, it only works if you use the words as they are used by others.
> Introducing "cis" removes that ambiguity, implying noun phrases rather than compound nouns, and thus implies acceptance of the "gender identity" belief. When people object to the terms "cis woman" and "cis man", they are expressing a rejection of this belief system.
Can you now circle back to the original topic - "cis" being defined as a slur? Because if the reason for Musk to define it as such is a rejection of the "belief system" of trans people, it seems pretty obvious that it's transphobic.
When people object to the terms "cis woman" and "cis man", they are expressing a rejection of this belief system.
Please don't paint with such a broad brush.
I'm not a huge fan of the term "cis" and use it somewhat reluctantly because it's the term I know to be in use to make this distinction. I also was very supportive of a trans youth for about nine months some years back.
I'm not interested in debating this with you. But for the record, it's possible to not like the term and also not be someone who outright rejects the concept that some people have a biological identity that doesn't match the identity in their brain.
I'm not a huge fan of labels. To me, it seems to add no real distinction. It is saying, basically, "What you thought the unmodified version of the following word meant before you learned some people feel that there is something very wrong with their life and it has to do with a mismatch between their body and their identity."
I don't know what the solution is. I think the LGBTQ community sees high levels of trauma due to social rejection and abuse, often from people very close to them who are supposed to protect them, not hurt them, and I think this complicates working out solutions.
But I think some of what gets done is probably not really in their best interest and it's hard to discuss that because any critique of current practices gets interpreted as "You are one of my enemies!"
"They?" The Romans? "cis" is just the Latin prefix antonym to "trans." The former means "on the same side (as)," the latter means "on the other side (of)."
