‘Cisgender’ is a Divisive Slur

The term “cisgender” has been framed as an uncontroversial label for those whose gender identity aligns with their biological sex. Yet, for many of us, it’s a loaded term—a slur even, that polarizes society, dismisses the lived realities of men and women, and imposes an ideological label that alienates rather than unites. Far from fostering dialogue, “cisgender” creates division, trivializes normative identities, and undermines mutual understanding. It’s activist gobbledygook.

What caused the latest uproar? A story published yesterday: California’s new high school sports policy, allowing cisgender girls (aka biological girls) displaced by transgender athletes (aka boys) to compete in the same state track championships, which became a weak attempt to dodge the real issue: fairness in women’s sports.

The reporter’s article referred to “cisgender girls” numerous times.

For further context, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) announced a “pilot entry process,” on May 27th, 2025, after President Trump’s sharp critique of transgender athletes in sports; this newly launched program in response is a convoluted half-measure that fails to address the fundamental problem of biological males competing in biological girls’ events. “Trans women” are displacing biological girls, robbing them of hard-earned opportunities. They cheat.

The CIF’s response—allowing those girls to compete anyway—admits the unfairness but avoids the root issue. Awarding medals to transgender athletes (biological boys) without “displacing” others is a vague, confusing distinction that breeds resentment and undermines merit.

This policy reeks of political cowardice. Governor Newsom, who once called transgender participation “deeply unfair,” suddenly now endorses this compromise, exposing his pandering to progressive pressures. The CIF’s silence on how it will define “biological female” raises red flags.

Is this part of a broader cultural surrender? Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding underscores what’s at stake: California prioritizes identity politics over fairness.

For nearly all of us, being a man or woman isn’t a deeply-thought out conscious alignment with biology—it’s simply who we are, rooted in the observable realities of sex that have shaped human societies for millennia, since the beginning of time. Labeling us “cisgender” implies our natural state requires some term to validate it, as if our identity is incomplete without us being defined against transgender experiences. This imposition feels like erasure, reducing a person’s lived reality to a checkbox.

Worse, “cisgender” is often wielded pejoratively. In online forums like X/Twitter or activist spaces like Reddit, the label is paired with terms like “cis privilege” or “cisnormativity,” implying that those labeled as such are inherently advantaged or complicit in systemic oppression. A 2023 post on Twitter, for instance, saw users decry “cis men” as inherently toxic, turning what would be a mere label into actual judgment. This usage transforms “cis” into a slur.

The term’s polarizing effect is profound. By dividing people into “cis” and “trans,” it creates an “us vs. them” binary that oversimplifies the complexity of human identity.

Moreover, “cisgender” dismisses the normative experiences of men and women. Most humans are born male or female, and our gender aligns with that biology—a reality that shapes reproduction, social roles, and cultural norms. Calling this “cis” trivializes it, framing it as just one identity among many.

Advocates argue “cisgender” is essential for clarity, normalizing transgender experiences by showing everyone’s gender exists on a spectrum. They claim it avoids implying transgender people are abnormal. Yet, this assumes everyone sees gender as a choice or negotiation, which we certainly don’t.

We need language that bridges divides, not widens them. Instead of “cisgender,” let’s use terms that respect individual realities without forcing ideological conformity. Open dialogue, free of labels that alienate. Let’s reject “cisgender” and embrace language that unites us as humans.