I can't get my head around the phrase "Transwomen are women".

There is no need to even say that, Hermione. You can say "women" and "trans-women".

It pisses me off for 2 reasons

• it derails debate. Language should help clarify and talking about "cis women" when you can simply say "biological women" is completely illogical.
• as an ethnic minority gay woman, I've had enough labels imposed on me to last a lifetime. I reject this one.

I think albadross summed it up pretty well for me. I don't like being defined by a label I didn't choose. I don't routinely refer to myself as a white woman, or a short woman, so why should I need to refer to myself as a ciswoman?

Chemistry takes lots of terms from Latin.

Still, chemistry or directly from Latin (chemistry took the term from Latin too), the point is that it is an odd term to use.

here

I think cis in chemistry is taken from the Latin. Functional groups are described as cis when they are on the same side of a double bond, and trans when they are on opposite sides of the double bond.

I've been reading trans threads fir a never of years now on mumsnet and usually they get very heated and all discussion is lost.

I'm not a bigot. I consider myself a feminist. I am an ordinary working mother not really into the whole radical feminist thing.

But whole 'cis' thing troubles me...I feel like it's a way of demoting me even further - referring to my biology to define me makes me feel like I am being defined as some sort of passive breeder. Perhaps I am wrong but I can't shake the irritation with the whole thing.

As far as I know, from chemistry.

But it's all nonsense as we already have words for these things that people actually understand and don't spend the whole debate scratching their heads going "what does 'cis' mean?"

Thanks, Hermione. My background is in linguistics, and so of course my mind naturally went to Latin on seeing the word used in reference to women (I mean, why would I think of chemistry anyway??)

Cis in chemistry means the same as in the post below. On the same side as.

Was cis borrowed from chemistry or from Latin?

I was also referring to a very successful boxing promoter
www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/frank-maloney-sex-change-boxing-4030910

alex "cis" is taken from chemistry. As I understand it you have "trans" functional groups within molecules and their opposites are "cis" functional groups . Like 'trans fats'.

I refuse to use "cis". There is a perfectly good term to describe women who were born as women - it's biological women.

Borrowing obscure terms from molecular chemistry helps nobody in this debate.

nymag.com/news/features/martine-rothblatt-transgender-ceo/

Good point re trans being its own experience.

There have been quite a few threads on this issue recently. I am curious, personally, as to why they chose the prefix 'cis' to differentiate women. It seems to me a really odd choice. It is originally from Latin, in which it meant "on this side of" (eg Cis-Alpine Gaul - the bit of Gaul on this side of the Alps).

I do not like it being applied to me.

I struggle with the term 'cis', and only because it's used as a derogatory term by the trans community.

I don't feel I should be made to feel bad just because I was born female and I'm ok with that, just as I don't believe someone who was born 'male' but is actually female should feel guilty.

I grew up thinking I could do anything - my gender never came into it - but now I'm actually grown up I feel the weight of my biology suddenly heavy on my shoulders and can look back and see it was there all the time.

Nobody likes a label they didn't choose.

Being trans is a thing itself.
Yy

Excuse my ignorance about who you might be talking about - is there any chance you're talking about a boxing promoter?

I had no idea they were rich or even that successful. I also don't know any of the others on your list.

One of the richest women in the world was born a man.

And lived as a man while becoming successful. Of course, it skewers the statistics for women. It's much easier to argue that systemic barriers to women's success have been dismantled and women are now succeeding in all areas when you don't mention that the example of that success lived as a man while succeeding.

I think those within the trans movement wishing to only and solely identify as female is a failure of the trans-movement.

Being a trans-female is an entirely unique experience and trying to shoehorn that experience into 'we're all females now' detracts from that unique experience and fails to celebrate difference.

Being trans is a thing itself. Keep it.

One of the richest women in the world was born a man.
Sports personalities who are doing quite well...because actually they are biologically men. Producers, promoters..

You're comparing them to other men, but you need to compare them women. And they have had privilege in comparison.

They have been raised as men and you can see the privilege but you can also see that they are socialized differently or they would not have that privilege. It's no coincidence that such a tiny minority are doing quite well compared to billions of women unless you admit there is something different.

I don't care about the trans thing AT ALL - I think go for it. Enjoy. Be a woman. Whatever.

But I get really annoyed when this group tells me I should identify as a 'Cis' woman.
I think that really I've got enough on my plate without yet another group telling me how to fucking define myself.

I mean give over with the 'Ciswoman' nonsense. What does Cis even mean? I'd prefer 'biowoman' - it's git superhero overtones

The group 'women' is not a dumping ground for all harshly treated, disadvantaged people.

Maybe that will end up being the final definition of woman.