Accepting the term 'cis'?

Prawn agree.

I could identify as a lesbian.

I'm not a lesbian >> I don't fancy women but hey why let that let me stand in the way of identifying my way into a group that I have no right to join.

*I did stereoisomerism upthread,
Sadly it went pretty much unnoticed *

A shoutout for chemistry (which taught me that it is impossible to ignore material reality)!

I recently saw a tshirt at a university shop with 'woman' then a bunch of chemical signs underneath. I don't think it was being political bit I was too chicken to buy it!

New slogan..."women are women".

Presumably this would be considered "hate", and hurtful to the feelings of others.

Sorry Beyond! Scanning and missed that.

How is it that Science can be so blatantly ignored by everything in this day and age? We have more wondrous knowledge and fact at our fingertips than ever before and it is completely ignored on every level by society and the flat-earthers in charge.

I am bamboozled

We need a Science party - all political decisions to be based on scientific fact checking policy from now on. Would sort everything right out. Economics, Social Policy, Health etc - all logic based.

Thank you for these replies, lots of stuff I haven't thought about before (esp that by deepwater )

Why on earth would we accept cis?

Trans women (I don’t know about trans men) don’t want to acknowledge that some sort of transition has had to happen so we should just let them have ‘woman’ and we’ll justify our own existence by accepting ‘cis’.

Because it’s that easy. Because womanhood isn’t all that important so let’s just hand it over. We can settle. It’s fine. Woman doesn’t matter all that much.

Pure misogyny.

The world is truly fucking crazy.

I did stereoisomerism upthread, disorganised

Sadly it went pretty much unnoticed

'...wouldn't having the term cis be better than existing under one umbrella of womanhood?'

Define womanhood. Define woman. If you cannot define woman (and I mean 'define' as in describe in a noncircular objectifyable manner), there is no basis for women's rights in your coordinate system.

You ask us to ascribe to some ideology that holds that 'woman' is just a feeling that males and females can have, and whoever has it, is under the umbrella of undefined womanhood. An ideology that invalidates women's rights, because anyone can have them, even though the specific reproduction-based oppressions only women face.

Why would women subscribe to that, unless under duress?

or there is the long winded science definition because science is good

I dislike the whole 'identify as' thing. I thought through all the things that define me and I don't 'identify' as anything. I am a woman. I am a mother. I am a sober alcoholic. The last one is important. If I just identified as a sober alcoholic I'd be dead by Christmas.

So it seems that to 'identify as' means that you're not actually what you identify as, i.e. men who identify as women are not women. It means that you really want people to understand and believe that you are something that in reality you are not.

I can't see the appeal myself. I could identify as the world's most houseproud person. But it wouldn't change the fact that I live in chaos, and anyone who visited me would know I was lying. I couldn't be bothered trying, but I can imagine how hard it would be to pretend and force my view of myself on people around me. That's where the TRA rage comes from. It's hard work bending the whole world to your view.

Thanks for answering me! I am really quite conflicted about this because yeah, we're born female or male and that just means chromosomes and genitalia really, so anything beyond that has nothing to do with whether we're male or female. But then I know that we're so very steeped in gender roles and that some people truly feel trapped by the genitalia they were born with and that gender reassignment really does help their mental health.

Transwomen and Women, works just fine.

Any reference to the c word should be met with " a what now?" followed by first sentence on repeat henceforth.

The category that I and a male-bodied person who identifies as female are both included in is human. Or (depending on the person), white, Welsh, European-descent, disabled, autistic, ambidextrous, whatever.

It isn't woman.

You don't earn your sex, it just is.
Now the right to use the correct, factual, descriptive terminology is being taken away from us and is being replaced by a dogma that has no factual basis.
This should be a concern for everyone.

It's like saying that those of us whose right hand is dominant should describe ourselves as non left handed rather than as right handed.

The terminology. So, cis female isn't great because women have earned the right to be female, am I right?

No. Women have been born female. Like any other female mammal. It is not something to be earned, it is simply physical reality, like being brown-eyed.

Pidlan, it's because by accepting the 'cis' label, we are not in separate category to transwomen. By accepting 'cis' we accept that we are now a subcategory under the umbrella.

Ellen

Why in the name of all that's sensible should I define myself as something I'm not? (you said, 'cis means not trans') Screw that. And the Green Party's one-time definition of women as 'non-men'.

Why on earth should we accept a label that is best defined as a negative quality?

(this point quite aside from the fact that many of us refuse to acknowledge 'gender' anyway, or that we are 'comfortable' with the gender that society has assigned us.)

Can I ask a question? I am a lurker on the feminism board, and am always a bit scared to comment because I do sometimes disagree with the vast majority on here. But this is a straight and honest question, and I'd really like to know the answer.
The terminology. So, cis female isn't great because women have earned the right to be female, am I right? But seeing as there are trans people in the world, wouldn't having the term cis be better than existing under one umbrella of womanhood? Because from reading this board, it's clear that most of the women here don't want to thought of in the same terms as trans women.
Also, if we can refute the terms like cis ("Cisgender is a term used to describe people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth") because we want to self-identify, does that not make it complex when we don't want trans people to self-identify?
Please don't all jump on me. These are genuine questions and I am undecided about many aspects of these issues, and just hoping that there is somewhere that I can have a reasoned and balanced debate about them.

It's not about if an individual man is willing to term himself 'cis'. It's about the habitual use of the term. So the woke will often use a phrase like 'Trans women and cis women'. They will not often use a phrase like 'Trans men and cis men'.

See also 'Transwomen are women' - the phrase 'Transmen are men' is used, but it's always an afterthought, never the battlecry.

Its obvious isn't it. Huistorically both homosexual and racial groups have clarified what they want, and don't want, to be called. The latter then becomes an insult.

Why should others impose on women, what they should be called, and then pressure women to accept it. Even if we find it insulting. Or, according to gender expectations, are "proper" supposed to be submissive and accepting, so it is OK.

I suggest we each decide that we all possess sufficient male, as opposed to stereotypical female, gender characteristics to be defined as men. Equality at a stroke? if it were so easy

Watch out with "would he call himself a cis man" as there arewoke men who will use it themselves, thinking it gives them a legimate stick to beat those nasty feminists with...

There's something a bit nutty about forming a group with the intention of taking down 99.999% of the population ("down with cis").

Re "cis" being used as a term of abuse, as well as "die cis scum" there's also "down with cis" which I believe was the name of the secret trans-only Facebook group of a certain women's officer? Never mind that most of the people who voted for them will have been "cis" by their definition...

I am still boycotting Lush (very sadly as I was a big fan) partly because they were insisting on "cis-ing" people! Hoping they will sort their act out soon, else I will have to take my Christmas stock-up somewhere else. But up with that I will not put.