"Cavendish Banana" Is Not a Slur...

And Neither Is "Cis Woman": But That's Not the Point

Mr. Free Speech himself, Elon Musk, has stated that “ ‘cis’ and ‘cisgender’ will be considered slurs on Twitter that can be punishable with suspension.”

And then, in highly predictable ways, people belonging to two polarized camps responded.

The (Self-Styled) Progressive/Left Camp

Those who believe that it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to the unwilling as “cis” are quick to inform us of their belief that it’s “transphobic” or “hateful” to object to the term.

By extension, it sounds like their guiding principle would be: If you don’t agree with a group’s definitions, beliefs, and terminology, it’s still OK to impose those on others, if the group believes that they’re truly right and that others are truly bad/wrong/evil to disagree.¹

The (Self-Styled) “Anti-Woke” Camp

The anti-woke crowd seems to believe, more or less, that Musk is likely trolling the authoritarian left by giving them a taste of what they’ve been doing these past few years. For example, Ashley St. Clair pointed out on Twitter,

“We warned you that if you started this war on language, banning words because they're ‘hateful,’ you would have a rude awakening when someone who is not part of your ideological cult has the power to ban words. Your efforts to corrupt thought through language have set this precedent.”

Does that make it right, though? I say, no, it doesn’t.

If, as I happen to believe, our culture has taken a very wrong turn by declaring all sorts of language and good-faith disagreement “hateful” and beyond the limits of acceptable discourse, it doesn’t help if one of the most powerful men in the world starts doing it too, presumably to “make a point.”

What’s more: The people who need most to understand this point…aren’t getting it.

They’re sure they’re on the side of the angels, seething with pedantry and arrogance as they proclaim that “cis is not a slur” (meaning they fully intend to impose it on people who don’t want the label) — and they’re fully unaware of the irony.

The Irony

To say, “Cis is not a slur or an insult; it just means you’ve never questioned your gender” and impose that label on the unwilling is just as disrespectful as saying, “It’s not a slur or an insult; it just means you were born a man” to a transwoman who doesn’t want to be called “he.”

People who reject the label “cis” typically find it meaningless because they don’t have a “gender identity”: they use the word “woman” to refer to a sex class, not a gender concept). They associate the word “cis” with a belief in gender that they simply don’t share — even if they fully support other people’s right to believe in it.

The authoritarianism and rigidity that has crept in on the self-styled progressive/left camp is disheartening. It’s why I frequently refer to this as the “faux left.” The left was historically about openness, acceptance, flexibility, listening to other points of view, respecting a wide range of beliefs and ways of living — holding in mind that people don’t need to join us in rigid lockstep on every opinion we hold in order to be good people.

Imposing the “cis” label on people who don’t want it is simply not a progressive position.

So I disagree with Elon Musk’s methods, and I especially object to him muddying the argument by calling “cis” a “slur.” That’s not the problem with it.

Cavendish Banana Is Not a Slur, Either

Imagine how annoying and useless it would be if suddenly a group of people decided we had to clarify at all times what kind of banana we’re discussing. Basically all bananas, with very few exceptions, on US store shelves are a type of Cavendish banana.

You ask your partner to pick up bananas on the way home from work: “You mean Cavendish bananas?”

You request a banana with your oatmeal and your server follows up with: “A Cavendish banana?”

(No, I meant an East African Highland Banana, known in the Bantu languages as matoke. Do you have any of those, sir?)

In common usage among speakers of American English, a “banana” means one of these:

And then if we mean something else, we refer to it as, say, “a plaintain” (which is, yes, a type of banana), or “those little red bananas, you know, next to the regular bananas”:

In our context, calling bananas “bananas” is not an insult to plantains or red bananas — it’s not said with the intent of excluding or demeaning other bananas. It reflects the reality that almost all bananas in our culture are the medium-size, yellow Cavendish bananas, and everyone knows what we mean when we say “banana.”

It would therefore be annoying and unnecessary, but not offensive or a slur, if everyone insisted on using the term “Cavendish banana.”

And so no, “cis person” is not a slur, any more than “Cavendish banana” is — but it presents more of a problem than “Cavendish banana.”

“Cis” Is More Than Just Annoying

“Cis” is more than just annoying. Why? Because there are a lot of people who dislike being called “cis,” and they reject that label for themselves.

Let’s ask ourselves: What is our Western cultural norm for imposing labels on people who reject those labels?

If someone wants not to be labeled “cis” against their wishes, how is that different from someone who wants not to be “deadnamed” or “misgendered” against their wishes?

In today’s cultural climate, being respectful of people who wish not to be “deadnamed” or “misgendered” is considered unquestionably right, even if we don’t believe in those things ourselves.

Post-Enlightenment Western culture has been about accepting and being respectful of other people’s belief systems and wishes.

For example, in school we were taught that if we were present at a birth and the baby seemed in danger of dying, it would be appropriate and kind for us to baptize the baby, using any water available, if we were uncertain of the parents’ wishes. (Let’s say, there’s been a terrible accident, the mother’s unconscious, and the father’s not there.)

Why? Because some parents believe an unbaptized baby does not go to heaven. If that’s their belief system — whether or not it’s our belief system — these parents will undergo a lot of distress if their baby dies unbaptized, and they will receive some comfort if the baby is baptized.

That’s an example of respecting someone’s beliefs. When learning about this, we were told we didn’t have to share the belief (that unbaptized babies don’t go to heaven) in order to provide the baptism.

And it might seem obvious, but we were also told we should never override parents’ beliefs and baptize the unwilling (for example, a baby of Jewish parents). Even if we personally believe an unbaptized baby won’t go to heaven, it would be wrong to baptize a dying Jewish baby.

That’s how a multicultural society works best. We respect others’ beliefs — we allow people to believe what they wish, to express what they wish, and we support them in their beliefs and expression — provided they don’t impose their beliefs and expression on the unwilling. Someone who baptizes a Jewish baby has definitely overstepped.

Calling someone “cis” who doesn’t believe in “gender” (and who therefore finds the sex-based term “woman” or “man” adequate to describe themselves) does not adhere to this cultural norm of respecting and supporting others’ beliefs. It’s not how we live together in a multicultural society harmoniously.

So call yourself “cis” all day if you wish — but don’t call the unwilling or the non-believers “cis.” Simple, right?

This was our long-standing cultural norm until about 5 minutes ago. It worked a lot better.

1. By extension, I suppose the Westboro Baptist Church crowd thinks they’re right when they say “God hates f**s,” and they believe those who disagree are hell-bound. How do we all feel about them imposing the f-slur on gay men, because they really, truly believe in their hearts that they’re right, and those who disagree are wicked and hated by God? The guiding principle that “it’s OK to do it to others if you truly believe in it” quickly falls apart.