On #Cis [Sic] The neologisms 'cissexual' and 'cisgender' w…

and some kind of weighing up of the 'fit' between that thing ('gender identity') and one's sex. As the theory goes, everyone has a 'Gender Identity' which 'fits' or 'matches' the sex which - again *according to the theory* - one is 'assigned' [sic] at birth.

Problems so far:
2/

1. 'Assigned at birth' is a term appropriated by Gender Identity Ideologues / lobbyists from intersex / VSD Communities for whom it has a painful historical resonance. Pleas for it not to be appropriated fall on deaf ears. The term has zero rational basis for application in 3/

most human births.
2. The 'Gender Identity' thing requires acceptance of the notion that humans have a pre-cultural capacity for orienting ourselves to modes of 'gender expression' i.e. dress, mannerisms, habitus, demeanour & so on. This capacity / spirit ('Gender Identity') 4/

is the 'thing' which somehow interprets its correctness or otherwise against one's sex. To expand on this process: a human male or female cross-checks the mysterious contents & characteristics of his or her 'gender identity' against their bodies and concludes a 'match' ('Cis) 5/

or 'mismatch' (trans / nonbinary). This process is hypothetically possible ONLY if one accepts the notion that one is born with an innate characteristic / spirit / gender identity amounting to a kind of checklist of what is & isn't 'appropriate' /pertinent to or congruent with 6/

our sexed bodies. Accepting that notion requires us to accept all kinds of unevidenced - and unevidence-able - assumptions, for example:
*that there is an innate & hereditable 'checklist' of socially & culturally appropriate modes of behaviour & expression for males / females 7/

which is unrelated to our physical being.

Clearly this is rationally untenable AND horrendously, stultifyingly, regressive & conservative in many ways.
Furthermore we have to ask ourselves 'Where does this checklist of do's and don'ts come from?'. If it is innate it cannot be 8/

culturally, socially and politically contingent, by definition. The problem here is that all 'checklists' of what is 'appropriate', 'pertinent', 'congruent' between one's sexed body and one's sense of self *ARE* culturally, socially & politically contingent. They shift across 9/

time, place, class, faith, ethnicity and multiple other axes. We all know this for categoric fact. The notion of 'cis' invites us to forget - or pretend - that we don't know this. That's bad.
The idea that there's a single 'cis' identity is rationally/ logically/ historically 10/

untenable. The gold-standard does not exist in reality. There is NO absolute / permanent model of 'masculine man' or 'feminine woman' against which one can measure one's perceived alignment. Everything about gender is subjective, dependent on one's idiosyncratic exposure to 11/

myriad examples, models, iterations, dominant and less dominant modes of expression. It is UN-measurable, UN-quantifiable and ineffably UN-'Cis'-able.

If 'Cis' can't live in logic (which it can't) then it can ONLY exist as an ideological or affective statement of in-group 12/

allegiance. As with all statements of group allegiance, the motivations will vary for each person: some ppl will say 'I am Cis' to show solidarity with others they perceive (or who they are told) to be vulnerable. Others will say 'I am Cis' because they see a strategic or 13/

tactical benefit to doing so - internal politics of an institution for example, or as an identifier in a group conflict the outcome of which they hope will deliver material and symbolic gains for them as individuals. Some will say it because they know it works as an attack on 14/

a material, structural, class-based analysis of material reality and power relationships. Others because it's what their friends - or people they need to be friendly with - do.

No matter what the motive, the fact is that there is #NoSuchThingAsCis and #CisIsNonsense