A thought about 'cis'

[Fleek]

I was just lying in bed thinking last night and wanted to share what popped into my head with people. I'm sure this has occurred to others (everyone else?) because it's pretty obvious but I haven't seen it written down explicitly anywhere else.

It's about the word 'cis.' Activists are so insistent we use that term ourselves and are labelled that. I've seen women be very articulate about why they hate it and I've nodded along with everything written. All the stuff about how I don't 'identify' as a woman, I am one because of my sexed body, and about how we don't want to be tied to any gender stereotypes that redefine being female as having swishy hair or loving housework or being submissive, etc. etc.

But there is another layer to it. The mantra is transwomen ARE women. If TWAW, then why would this movement want to force a label on us that actually distinguishes us from TW? Surely that's an own goal?

I think actually, it's a way of forcing us into being seen as/taking the position of oppressors. We aren't being branded as 'cis' in order to separate us as just a different type of woman (like the awful way they use 'disabled woman, black woman, trans woman') or just to change the idea of woman into being a gender and not a sex, it's also about firmly telling us we have privilege and are on a higher rung than TW. If we look at oppression Olympics generally, the only way to be a good citizen is to make supplication by publicly labelling your privilege isn't it? Saying 'I'm inadvertently an oppressor but I renounce my sin.' If you are an oppressor it's your job to shut up and sit in the corner. It's your job to hand over your power. You also need punishing, perhaps, if you take this idea to absolute extremes - threatening with violence, assaulting, eliminating, even? Look at Twitter handles. One vocal American actress had on hers for a long while (it might be there still) - 'I punch Nazis'. It's vital we are segregated by this label 'cis' so we can have some of the power we've gained over the last 50 years stripped from us.

It just interested me to think about it.

[JoodyBlue]

Hi @Fleek, I agree. I think this is what is silencing a lot of woman who would otherwise speak up. There is a sense, not dissimilar to imposter syndrome that we don't deserve what we have, for many people I think. The ideology plays directly into that. It is always the thought - "I know what I think, but what if I'm wrong? Better be quiet then." So a loud crowd shouting about priviledge does just that, shuts down women, who may already be self silencing through diffidence.

[LaetitiaASD]

I think your post, OP, has a lot of merit.

Aside from that it's another bit of evidence of complete lack of logic from their side.

"Trans women are women, full stop end of debate... only simultaneously they are also trans women and NOT cis women".

Pathetic lack of logic.

This has just got me thinking. If women are cis women and trans women are women then surely trans-women are cis women? It's the only thing that makes sense.

I'm going to start pulling up these nut-jobs on their transphobia when they say "trans women are women" - surely that's transphobic because you're not saying that they're cis women?

OMG... they do actually simultaneously wish to claim that TWAW in every single way APART FROM the fact that they are underprivileged compared to "cis" women.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

This has just got me thinking. If women are cis women and trans women are women then surely trans-women are cis women? It's the only thing that makes sense.

Not disagreeing with your point, but just wanted to say you have a logic fail there in your thinking. Your argument is akin to saying the following:
If rain is water and the sea is water, then surely the sea is rain?

[ErrolTheDragon]

Yes, OP, that does seem to be part of it. As is evidenced by the frequently used term 'Cis privilege'.

[LaetitiaASD]

@PlanDeRaccordement

This has just got me thinking. If women are cis women and trans women are women then surely trans-women are cis women? It's the only thing that makes sense.

Not disagreeing with your point, but just wanted to say you have a logic fail there in your thinking. Your argument is akin to saying the following:
If rain is water and the sea is water, then surely the sea is rain?

Not sure I'm with you on the comparison

If a trans woman is a woman, full stop no debate, then the word trans is irrelevant.

If a woman is a cis-woman, and a trans woman is a woman, then a trans woman is a cis woman is a woman is a woman.

If A = B and if B = C then A = C (by simple logic maths).

[Babdoc]

If a great Dane is a dog, and a chihuahua is a dog, then a great Dane is a chihuahua? Don’t think so!
I disagree utterly with the use of cis, because the TRAs use it to try and claim that TWAW.
Their logic goes “black women are women, cis women are women, therefore biological men are women.” They want men to be a recognised subset of women, called TW, having relegated actual biological women to also be a subset of women - labelled “cis”.
It’s cultural appropriation of women’s language, definition and spaces.

[Jaysmith71]

Channelling my inner Doc Stock The Fillossifah, it has a sort of logic:

"Woman" is generic. The genus is comprised of the species Ciswomen and Transwomen, who are each women, but are specifically either cis or trans.

Ditto "Men"

The problem with this is: "OK, so what is the definition of the genus "Woman" such that the species Transwomen and Ciswomen belong together in the genus exclusive of others, specifically transmen.

The definition of "Woman" in this case amounts to:

• A circularity: "Cats and Dogs are pets because pets are cats and dogs. No Hamsters!
  
  
• Humpty-Dumpty: "Because I Say So!"
  
  
• Because "Gender Identity," that's Because.
  
  ....OK, so what's that? How do we measure it? Verify It? How might we test it with Popper's Falsifiability Thesis?
  
  Then we get back to Humpty-Dumpty, or POMO Babble, or "Transphobe! Burn The Witch!"

[LaetitiaASD]

@Babdoc

If a great Dane is a dog, and a chihuahua is a dog, then a great Dane is a chihuahua? Don’t think so!
I disagree utterly with the use of cis, because the TRAs use it to try and claim that TWAW.
Their logic goes “black women are women, cis women are women, therefore biological men are women.” They want men to be a recognised subset of women, called TW, having relegated actual biological women to also be a subset of women - labelled “cis”.
It’s cultural appropriation of women’s language, definition and spaces.

Sorry, I am trying to show the ludicrousness of trans logic. I completely disagree with the use of the word cis too. I do mainly agree with you.

Dog - trans woman (adult human male)
Cat - woman (adult human female)
Domestic-cat - cis-woman (another word for AHF)

If a dog is a cat and when we say cat we mean domestic cat, then a dog must be a domestic cat.

Surely the whole point of saying TWAW is -

(1) To muddy the waters / confuse the debate
and
(2) To claim that TW are "proper women" not the sub-class known as trans

But if "women" (ie "proper women") are also cis-women then surely either TW start demanding to be called cis or they have to accept that they are not proper women and there was no point trying to steal the word woman in the first place.

[Imnobody4]

I think you're spot on with the motivation. They want to keep Trans status in the victim game. Its about a hierarchy where they are on top. All kinds of adjectives can be applied to those in the category of woman eg short women, French women, blonde women,
The only use for 'cis' is to distinguish from 'trans' at a fundamental immutable level. Transwomen can slide into the Women category by TWAW but Cis women can never cross the boundary to become WATW.
It's nothing to do with logic etc it's just about power.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

Laetitia
It is not always the case that if A= B and B=C, then A=C
And we are dealing with truth values in propositional logic, not algebraic mathematics.

Another example:

Trans women are women. True
Cis women are women. True
Trans women are cis women. False

Similar to how
Apples are fruit. True
Pears are fruit. True
Apples are Pears. False

[PlanDeRaccordement]

Of course,
Somd people believe
Trans women are women. True

But other people believe
Trans women are women. False.

My point is that belief in
Trans women are women. True, does not necessarily mean that they also believe that cis women are transwomen. True.

Which is what @LaetitiaASD was proposing, that if you believe in one, you must believe in the other statement.

[EdgeOfACoin]

Trans women are women. True
Cis women are women. True
Trans women are cis women. False

What definition of 'woman' is being used here?

[EdgeOfACoin]

My point is that belief in
Trans women are women. True, does not necessarily mean that they also believe that cis women are transwomen. True.

Which is what @LaetitiaASD was proposing, that if you believe in one, you must believe in the other statement.*

Yes, agreed.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

@EdgeOfACoin

Trans women are women. True
Cis women are women. True
Trans women are cis women. False

What definition of 'woman' is being used here?

Doesn’t matter. This is an exercise in logic.

@LaetitiaASD was saying that if you believe
Trans women are women. True and
Cis women are women. True then you must believe that
Trans women are cis women. True

When this is a fallacy of her logic. It’s not logical at all to apply the if A=C and B=C then A=C deduction when dealing with propositional logic.

You can use any definition you want for woman.

[allmywhat]

Yep, so much more woke and acceptable to say “I hate cis women” than “I hate women” even though it means the same thing.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

@Babdoc
Yes, those that believe
Transwomen are women true, assert that transwomen are a subset of women in general.

And I agree with OP, the invention of “cis” to denote biological women was motivated not just by wanting to distinguish between biological women and trans women but to place trans women in an “oppressed” status along with disabled women, BAME women, gay women, etc.

[DadJoke]

Trans women and cis women are subsets of the class women. Of course cis women and trans women are different, or there would be no need to have the terms cisgender and transgender.

If it's helps, think of cis simply meaning "not trans." I don't think that conflicts with gc beliefs.

[Fleek]

If it's helps, think of cis simply meaning "not trans." I don't think that conflicts with gc beliefs.

Oh dear, where do we start?

Define trans if you want to help me understand 'not trans' first of all! If you could define trans without referencing gender stereotypes that would be even better

[AnyOldPrion]

Trans women and cis women are subsets of the class women. Of course cis women and trans women are different, or there would be no need to have the terms cisgender and transgender.

Different is certainly true, but in what ways are they the same? Can you explain what similarities there are between women and men who claim they are women that makes those men actually women in your head?

Because to use your terminology, transmen and “cis”women are the two subsets of women. What they have in common is both are female. Your suggestion doesn’t make logical sense to me, so please do explain the common features.

[Barheim]

If a trans woman is a woman, full stop no debate, then the word trans is irrelevant.

If a woman is a cis-woman, and a trans woman is a woman, then a trans woman is a cis woman is a woman is a woman.

If A = B and if B = C then A = C (by simple logic maths).

Cis women are women. Trans women are women.

Cis woman (A) = C.
Trans woman (B) = C.

A+B = C.

The category of 'women' isn't solely cis women, it's all women.

[DadJoke]

@AnyOldPrion

Trans women and cis women are subsets of the class women. Of course cis women and trans women are different, or there would be no need to have the terms cisgender and transgender.

Different is certainly true, but in what ways are they the same? Can you explain what similarities there are between women and men who claim they are women that makes those men actually women in your head?

Because to use your terminology, transmen and “cis”women are the two subsets of women. What they have in common is both are female. Your suggestion doesn’t make logical sense to me, so please do explain the common features.

Trans men and cis men are a subset of men. Trans women and cis women are a subset of women.

No, trans men and cis women are not subsets of women.

Trans means your gender identity does not align with your sex assigned at birth, cis means it does. Trans men and cis women have in common that were both assigned female at birth, so that's why people include trans men when discussing cervices or periods.

Trans men are not "claming they are men," any more than gay people are "claiming that they are gay." Sexuality and gender identity are both innate and heritable to about the same extent.

Except in gc and socially conservative circles, gender identity isn't disputed any more than sexuality is.

Here's a good place to start.

www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2018-polderman.pdf

[DadJoke]

*No, trans men and cis women are not subsets of women

I mean trans men are not a subset of women, sorry. Oh to be able to edit!

[XiXimXerJinping]

Some transwomen already identify as 'cis' because anything other than IDENTICAL TO WOMAN = triggering for them.

Which is interesting because they usually use cis as a slur too...

¯<span class="underline">(ツ)/¯

[viques]

@DadJoke

Trans women and cis women are subsets of the class women. Of course cis women and trans women are different, or there would be no need to have the terms cisgender and transgender.

If it's helps, think of cis simply meaning "not trans." I don't think that conflicts with gc beliefs.

“Think of cis simply meaning “not trans”

So by your logic black means not white ? And white means not black?

And trans means not woman?

Can you see that saying something is a subset of something it isn’t or saying that two things that are different are actually the same is illogical and irrational. You can say men and women are subsets of human beings, but not that men and women are not subsets of mushrooms. You also can’t say that men are a subset of women. And ditto. Because they aren’t.

You can’t turn something into something it’s not just by giving it another name, and in addition you can’t make something into something it wants to be by giving the something it wants to be another name. Things are what they are.