Do women like 'cis'?

Speaking from a position of privilege?

Cauliflower, I'm afraid you've bought the DARVO stuff Bewilderness mentioned upthread, hook line and sinker, particularly the "reverse victim and offender bit".

I am relatively privileged compared to most women world wide - note, compared to women. I still had to take my then employer to court a few years back to get paid the same as men doing exactly the same job. And that's me being one of the lucky women at the top of the heap. There's all the women being raped, murdered (2 women a week in the UK, but if you want a real shock, google the murder rape in Russia from spouses - it's estimated to be about 12,000 women a year, and the Russian government's response to this has been to decriminalise domestic violence ), subjected to FGM, forced into marriage while still children. Before we even get on to sex-selective foeticide.

It is insane to say that women speak from a position of privilege relative to some men who choose to get their jollies by putting a dress on. (Because it is, on the whole, the men who get their jollies putting a dress on who are making this huge noise about "cis" and "transwomen are women" and other such shit; old-school transsexuals with genuine dysphoria about their sexed bodies tend to just quietly get on with life and for the most part are respectful of women's spaces).

What does it cost women to signal their submission to men who identify as women?
History teaches us if we are willing to learn.

I lose out. I am reduced by it and I find it offensive. I don't identify as cis.

Why would I call myself a "cis"woman?! I'm a woman full stop. OMG sorry but this is such nonsense! Why do we need to redefine ourselves just because another group of people wish to redefine themselves? This is nuts !

Mic? Don’t even know what I was trying to say in the context of that sentence.

I don’t lose out by being labelled cis. Nothing changes for me. But it means a lot to the trans community. So. Good. Is what I meant.

I don’t like the word, subjectively. Objectively, it needs to exist. Anyone who says it doesn’t needs to understand that they are arguing from a position of privilege. Nothing is taken from women like me by applying the cis label. But mic is granted to the trans community. Therefore it is all good. There are bits of gender politics that trouble me. But broadly speaking - cis can only be good.

They use the abuser tactic known as DARVO. Deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender.

The answer to all of it is they're still men.

My basic rule for dealing with it is to remember that the core strategy of gender identity ideology is to reverse reality.

This is so true. They are language vandals. Any term they hijack, they use to mean the opposite of what it actually means. Biological essentialism is the one that grinds my gears the most.

Lionel Shriver's description of it as creepy is correct.
plus its a word that sets up a narrative. once you accept it you accept so much more.

I'm wearing my reverse bamboozle glasses today, I'm ok.

I certainly don't mind, MostInept!

And I wouldn't berate yourself for your 'half baked thoughts'. Trans Newspeak is designed to bend the mind, to distort communication and make clear thought impossible. It takes a lot of thinking, a lot of reading, to deconstruct their linguistic contortions, and they're always manufacturing new ones.

I am constantly astonished at the logical sleights-of-hand that they manage to come up with. My basic rule for dealing with it is to remember that the core strategy of gender identity ideology is to reverse reality. Whatever language they are advancing is designed to convey the literal opposite of the truth. It isn't just deceptive or disingenuous, in the sense of a simple lie or a half-truth. It is genuinely Orwellian in the sense of 'War is Peace'.

Consider: 'Trans women are women'. What is being claimed here? 'Trans women' (males) are women (females)'. How about the charge that women who will not pretend to believe that males are female are guilty of 'transmisogyny'? The claim here is that 'misogyny' is an irrational hatred of males harboured by females. War is peace, males are females, women inflict misogyny on men. This is how gender identity 'logic' works, and it is precisely because it reverses reality in such a brazen manner that it manages to bamboozle so many people.

I'd be interested to know whether the women who object to the term cisgender on the basis that it suggests they are 'subordinate' within their gender feel the same about other human descriptors.
I feel the same about cis as I do about whore, bitch, and cunt. All of which are used as descriptors for women, most often by men who hate them.

Using the stonewall definition we would all be trans anyway
I don't conform to gender norms
I reject gender anyway so I'm not going to identify as anything
I've seen cis and woman used in trans circles. So cis is an actual woman and woman is a TIM

Donkey: 'Cis' is not a descriptor. It pretends to be an adjective but it does not function like one. It is actually a linguistic suicide bomber with no grammatical analogues outside of Orwell's Newspeak, because unlike a true modifier, it doesn't add to the sense of the head noun: it obliterates its meaning.

Donkey I hope you don't mind but I have borrowed this (didn't take the credit) to use in a futile argument I am having in the comments of a stupid Facebook advert for period pants 😂
I could have done with reading this thread before I decided to wade in with my half baked thoughts.

Donkey

Once again you nail it. Beautifully.

I don't like the term 'cis' to describe me because I am not an isomer!

Handy shorthand for what? That we're considered inferior and can be safely ignored?

Someone on twitter told me cis was handy shorthand.
My reply was:

Only in your fevered imagination is that handy. A tea towel is handy, a comb is handy. That stupid word is just a stupid word used by stupid people.

twitter.com/JaneRobacockle/status/976251238814711809

Quote from Datun's link - "If you have a conviction in your previous name or the gender identity you were assigned with at birth, this may show on the completed Disclosure."

I don't know what people would end up seeing in the disclosure, but I'm guessing that perhaps it might state something like "person X committed a crime", which is different to "person X committed a crime when they were named Y"? But again, I don't know.

I will call you what you ask me to.as long as it's not rude.

You can call me she/her/them/cis whatever you want to call me except male as I am not a man, trans as I'm not trans or anything offensive.

Otherwise - it's just ridiculous.

Donkey: 'Cis' is not a descriptor. It pretends to be an adjective but it does not function like one. It is actually a linguistic suicide bomber with no grammatical analogues outside of Orwell's Newspeak, because unlike a true modifier, it doesn't add to the sense of the head noun: it obliterates its meaning.

I think I want to marry you! Your whole post is brilliant but this is just outstanding.

As far as I know there is a mandatory opt in for when people change their identity. In terms of the DBS. If they have a record.

However.

Previous Convictions
If you have a conviction in your previous name or the gender identity you were assigned with at birth, this may show on the completed Disclosure. You may be able to prevent this from happening. Therefore if you do have such a conviction, you should discuss this with the Sensitive Applications Team when you make initial contact.

www.galop.org.uk/dbs-gender-identity/

drspousewrote - "So as a Guider, if I am doing a DBS for a new leader who has "changed sex" legally I can see their previous identities."

vesuvia No, definitely not. The government keep it secret.

Hold up.

Do crimes committed whilst 'under' a previous identity show up?

Could someone hire a sex offender after jumping through all the DBS hoops?