New Trans thread as requested by HQs.

hathor - I've just seen your post about your rape. I'm so sorry to hear that. Hope you are ok.

As it stands though, in the UK, and under UK law as elucidated in the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a transgendered individual who has been issued with a GRC is legally the "new" sex. And should be treated as such.

I think it is ridiculous to say that "male" and "female" are just labels.

The entire natural world is divided into male and female, there are clear characteristics that distinguish the male from the female humans and any other species.

If a human skeleton is exhumed after 1000s of years, it can be determined whether it was a male or female.

To acknowledge a difference does not imply the acceptance of any theory saying one is better than the other, which is a ridiculous argument in itself. Male and Female are obviously equally important/valid/necessary.

To say that there is no significant biological difference, and it is all just labels put on people by a bigoted society is disingenuous or even naive.

It is like saying we all have the same skin colour. No we don't. However, obviously, skin colour is not important, and one colour is not superior to another. We do not need to say that no difference in skin colour exists to come to this conclusion.

To me it feels wrong to have to call a man with his penis taken off a "female", as to me, being a female does not equal man minus penis.

Maybe transgender patients should be seen as a "third sex" ? Or just be officially the sex they ARE (and which is unchangeable) but be allowed to call themselves Ms. in their lives.

If a friend would prefer me to call him "her" from now on, with or without operation, I would oblige. And I have no trouble with transsexuals using women's toilets, (but I would have no trouble with men using women's toilets either. I don't really see why men's and women's toilets should be separated anyway, after all, you lock yourself into an individual cubicle for the bit where you pull your pants down anyway.)

hully - dunno, I'm not a MtF who feels that, so I can't really comment. I hope not, though. I'm not really keen on assigning labels to other people at all.

hully - sorry, we're cross posting, I'll shut up in a minute.

I am sure it is a generation thing. I think mainly it's a problem - which dogs this whole issue - of people who have no vested interests thinking what they can really do to help is wade in and start laying down the law.

I'm sure this is not a new problem, I'm sure people have been jumping on bandwagons for centuries, but I think it is quite a big issue here, because (as I said) I think a lot of people have accepted without question the idea that changing sex is really very simple, very unproblematic, and an important 'cause' to support. This just strikes me as immensely unhelpful.

I mean, lrd, that if you were a mtf trans who felt that your gender had been incorrectly assigned at birth (surely the nub), then you would feel perfectly justified in coming up with a term for those lucky enough to have been correctly assigned in the first place.

I thought dittany had been banned?

cis in general parlance and not specifically related to trans issues is a nonsense.

hully - why, though? I get why some tabloid journalist would need to use it, or why a medic would need to. But surely if you want to be a woman, you'd want to say you're a woman?

I really don't get it.

I have never heard anyone use "cis" in RL either Hully. I must be old as well I know I am

lrd - cross post.

REALLY? Wow. I have never ever heard anyone use "cis." Is it a generational thing? (old)

Kri - but that only works so long as the Catholic Church is not in a position to agitate or legislate about your right to abortion, surely?

But who uses cis other than mtf trans?

And they would, wouldn't they? Cos they'd have to.

I have another thread in feminism going. I'm going to bring an anecdote from it over here.

I was raped by my ex. And beaten. I do not view that as a feminist issue - I just don't. I've been told I fit a group and am part of the "sisterhood" whether I like it or not.

So, is the onus on me to change my personal feelings about what happened to me, or is the onus on the other person to change and be accepting and tolerant of the fact that that is how I feel even if it doesn't square with what they think and it makes them uncomfortable?

Because that to me smells of denying my feelings about my experience.

hully - oh, I wish!

I admit, I have some very sweet, very right-on friends. The irony being they know very, very little about any of these issues.

They do routinely use 'cis woman'. They have noticed my catsbum face but haven't quite worked out why.

Moo, that would be clear (in fact, it's what I said, although I know it was a long post and you may have flagged before the end). But, of course, being a 'cis woman' isn't any trans person's 'choice', is it? It's a label that keeps being pushed at me.

Like SGM, I find 'cis woman' offensive as a term.

I understand what Moo is saying. Let's imagine that I'm a Catholic and I've been brought up with the church's teaching that abortion is murder and is a sin. I would never have an abortion and I wish other people never had abortions. But, I don't believe I have the right to stop other people having abortions because I personally don't agree with the choices they make.

I worry that some feminists try very hard to push the belief that by their very existence, trans people are a danger to women. It's hogwash, just the same as it is when homophobes insist that gay men are a threat to straight men or MRAs insist that violent women and women who lie about rape are a threat to men.

Surely "cis" is only used in discussing/debating the whole trans issue? So that if someone was discussing issues with a trans mtf who wanted to be called "woman," and was very aware of incorrect gender birth assignment, one might use "cis"?

Surely no one is suggesting it be used in general parlance?

moo, forgive me, but that makes bugger all sense. One might as well say 'well, you are the lesbian, you are the one with the 'problem', so kindly redefine your world view and we'll have no more of this gay rights nonsense'. Indeed, your argument could apply equally to either the trans or the radfem side of this argument.

I do know a transgendered person. She is MtF. She would be mortified beyond belief if she thought for one second that her being anywhere would be upsetting anyone.

I think there are extremes in every viewpoint, there's always an outrageous case and it's the "hard cases" that make for difficult discussions.

I could find outrageous cases that don't fit the legal norms on discrimination, on compensation in a tort case, on medical negligence, on adverse possession of land, if you want to look at the problematic Pye case, on any of a number of things.

What - that you think it's ok to object to individuals but not to a practice?

Why, hully?