Banning the term "cis"

I'm still waiting for a definition of women which a) doesn't refer to biology
b) doesn't involve gender stereotypes

Which is why transactivists have had to narrow the definition of woman down to 'it's how you feel inside'.

A feeling is difficult to refute and impossible to prove one way or another. It's not nice to deny someone's feeling and it's too easy to hurt them hence it's much simpler all round to pander to feelings.

I feel like a woman therefore I am is almost beautiful in it's simplicity if a little too Descartes for me.

Cross post, Cancelly

Come and wait for the definition with me, I've got .

I'm still waiting for a definition of women which a) doesn't refer to biology
b) doesn't involve gender stereotypes

I don't actually believe one exists.

I'm not a 'cis woman,' I'm a woman, and until the trans* lobby can come up with a definition of being a woman that doesn't rely on the acceptance of damaging essentialist stereotypes (pink, dresses, heels, ladybrain) I'm not going to take 'cis' seriously, since by their definitions I'm non-binary and so is every woman I know.

The 'die cis scum' messages sent to gender-skeptics are enough proof to me that it isn't meant as a neutral term. It's not comparable to other descriptors. I don't mind being called a 'white woman' or a 'working-class woman' because I am those things. I'm not cis. Or does my right to self-identification not count, since I'm not biologically male?

seekevery blistory nodding here. Yes. More common sense ,thank goodness!

Bert,

As I understand it, not wanting to be called 'cis-woman' is considered to be a trait of cis privilege but is not, in itself, transphobic. Depending of course on which vocal transactivists are online on any given day redefining homophobia and sexism as transphobia.

NeedaClever me too or other peoples heads . It's such ridiculous nonsense that my DH thinks it's a joke not a real "thing"

PhilPhil exactly this and kittylaroux YES! Excellent example. Posie I think you're spot on with everything too.

I'm not phobic about anything but a man in a dress is just that. A man in a bloody dress. He is not a trans woman. I can't actually believe all this fucking nonsense. What has happened to society that people think they can just make up new words for basics such as man and woman and hope to get away with it?

By all means if you were born a sex that you feel is wrong then have a sex change . Men wearing make up,frocks and high heels means nothing other than that. Take it off you're still a man underneath.

It's so bloody basic it baffles me that it's gone this far. As for sorena I find YOU very draining indeed.

I think most women are upset because they were quite happy to accept transwomen and to support the cause until they realised that some transwomen didn't just want to be accepted but to redefine what it is to be a woman.

Calling oneself non binary is buying into the whole crappy game of self identity and conflating it with an importance it just doesn't have.

'Sorry, I am not a cis woman, I am non-binary' = that's a valid thing to call someone but you've made a mistake in applying it to me personally. There are cis women, but I have a different label.

I would rather say 'no I'm not a 'cis woman' and neither is anyone else because it's meaningless tosh.

I am not doing nonsense identity politics and calling myself 'non binary'. That just gives the whole thing a legitimacy I don't think it should have.

Yes, Bengal, but there are fundamental problems with (2), as discussed on this thread.

We don't need cis to say we are women. Being a woman, where relevant, is distinction enough. I don't need to declare to everyone how I feel about the construct of gender, and saying I am or am not 'non binary' just entrenches the idea further that not buying into gender is something special people with a special name do, rather than something we can and should all do.

"Honestly, the transphobia on this forum is shocking"

Just to be clear, are you saying that not wanting to be described as a "cis-woman" is in iitself enough to be called transphobic?" I would really like a yes or no answer to this, please.

milkbottle, 'cis' is offensive because of the assumptions that the term makes about gender. Gender stereotypes have been and still are very harmful to women, yet increasingly legislation is defining women according to a vague, subjective idea of gender. However I suspect having read all these threads properly you already know that, so it shouldn't be too tricky to understand why 'cis' is offensive.

Transwomen deals with those issues too, so yeah, women. Whatever bits you've got in your pants doesn't matter

Number of MTTs aborted before birth or killed shortly after for being MTT? Number of MTTs forced to birth children? None of the issues I listed are relevant to MTTs but, guess what? They all affect FTTs who are also in the group of people born with female reproductive organs so by your definition, Soren would not be included but people born with male reproductive organs would be included. Are you saying there should be no name for the group of people born with female reproductive organs?

Transphobia ? Given that there is no accepted definition of what trans is, how on earth can the phrase transphobia have meaning ?

Why aren't people getting that if someone calls you 'cis-women';
you just go sorry I am non-binary

I think they're not getting it because it's bollocks.

So why do some trans people have to redefine what it is to NOT be trans? That's weird (isn't it?)

Yes, I do find it weird. And intrusive.

Nobody is being transphobic, they just don't want to be called cis which is understandable

Actually I think MN is OTT on several 'isms, and that includes ageism (outing myself as an Old Bint now).

If CIS is just a way to distinguish trans from not trans, then why not say "biologically female" or even 'bio-female' for short. Why go for jargon, instead?

Sorena, can you explain how women are "all the same inside"?

You're obviously not talking about biology so are you implying that all women have similar brains? Can you define woman without making any reference to gender stereotypes?

I know you might say you don't know because you don't identify as a woman. But if that's the case then I would say that equally, you aren't qualified to state that all women are internally the same.

I honestly can't believe how over the top you have all taken this term. It's just a useful term to use in conversation to differenciate between trans and non-trans people. Honestly, the transphobia on this forum is shocking, and I simply don't understand why it is not taken as seriously as things like ageism, which is apparently the world's worst crime.

I guess what bothers me is this...

The black power movement didn't (did they?) demand removing the word 'white'. They preferred "black" instead of Negro & later African-American was even better. It was all about promoting themselves , not putting down the other guys.

Or gay folk said they wanted to be gay-lesbian-bi; they didn't choose a new word for heterosexuals (did they)? Straight is slang, but I don't remember it shoved down my throat as only appropriate word to use.

I suppose the social model of disability redefines what it is to be able-bodied... does the SM impose new words for being not-disabled?

So why do some trans people have to redefine what it is to NOT be trans? That's weird (isn't it?)