William Shatner

Thanks! I wasn’t sure what mike hind meant about “you don’t risk suspension only for asserting the biological basis of sex on twitter” as plenty have been so couldn’t work out whether he was being sincere or ironic!

maybe Martysouth can explain to self-identifying Cis-woman Littlemeadow123 that shes really mixed up too?

What is wrong with saying cis and trans to describe whether or not you identify with the gender you were born with

Never would have thought you would be like this towards people who are different, didn't think all those years of teaching us how to accept aliens and life forms as part of the universe would come to not accepting people of our own species.

This person confuses 'accepting people' and 'subscribing to a belief system.'

My lack of belief in God does not imply that I do not 'accept' the existence of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a human and UK citizen who should be protected by all relevant human rights legislation.

As far as I know the Archbishop of Canterbury does not regard my lack of belief in God as a threat to his existence as a person (although he may regard it is a problem for the C of E).

There's a few people on twitter who may need this explaining to them as well, as they seem quite insistent that cis is all about gender.

Does anyone know what this means? I’ve read it a few times but can’t work out his point

That the user wasn't referring to Uncle Tom in the US racist sense, but "Uncle Tom Cobley and all" as a synonym for lots of people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UncleTomm_Cobley

But Twitter's algorithm thought he was calling James O'Brien an "Uncle Tom" (even though he is white) and he was suspended.

[quote EweSurname]Does anyone know what this means? I’ve read it a few times but can’t work out his point

mobile.twitter.com/MikeH_PR/status/1290913755891732480[/quote]
It means that the twitter algorithms detected 'Uncle Tom' as being a slur and that a human upheld this even though it was being quoted as part of a song, presumably with no intended allusion to the 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' meaning.

I’m happy about William Shatner. Loved Star Trek when I was younger.

Like BubonicPlague, I had no objection to cis when I first encountered it. Indeed my main problem with cis relates entirely to the current claim that men are literally women and that on that basis, women oppress men and those men are really ‘the most oppressed women evah’.

Cis is one of the tools currently being used by men to claim their needs are greater than women’s, and thus women’s rights must prioritize men.

Cis is nothing to do with gender.

Are you deliberately hilarious?

(Apart, obviously, being a prefix commonly used by chemists to distinguish between isomers)

Does anyone know what this means? I’ve read it a few times but can’t work out his point

mobile.twitter.com/MikeH_PR/status/1290913755891732480

DickKerr you are really mixed up. Cis is nothing to do with gender.

How'd you work that one out, exactly?

I love Shatner and I hate sea lions who join a thread to make it all about them and not James Tiberius. My first ever crush, he will always have a special place in my heart.

It's a redundant prefix because the word "woman" should by itself be sufficient to identify that the person described as such is a biological female. But in this version of The Emperor's New Clothes we're all now living in, some have decreed that it is insufficient to simply describe yourself as a "woman" if you are an adult human female. You know, in case you offend all the other people who have a claim on that term who aren't adult human females.

I loved him in Star Trek and does anyone remember his Danny Crane in Boston Legal? Absolutely hilarious.

Am so pleased at this turn of events.

I hate this new word that they're trying to foist on us.

Littlemeadow, you don't mind people making you a subset of your own sex and insisting that you must identify with your own fucking oppression? REALLY? You need to find some self respect.

Transmen’s individual and personal identity decisions do not necessitate that women as a class must in general use ‘cis’ as a self distinguishing term to mean ‘not a transman’.

It's also pretty meaningless when somebody whose sex is female can self-describe as trans because they are femme presenting non binary.
I'm not knocking the reasons why a 'femme presenting non binary' person might wish to find community, but the term 'trans' now includes anyone as long as they claim to subscribe to a particular set of views about gender.

what do you disagree with re what dickkerr said?

i agree- and i find cis an assumption and an insult.

ooh i love william shatner and would have assumed, likemost americans inthe public eye, he wouldbe wokey mcwoke.
hope he holds firm.

DickKerr you are really mixed up. Cis is nothing to do with gender.

Apologies, I was missing a ‘biologically male’ in front of the ‘transsexuals or transvestites‘ that I mentioned in the last paragraph.

Same logic also applies to transmen, who are a subset of women and as such also make no change to the factually based overall descriptor called ‘women’. Transmen’s individual and personal identity decisions do not necessitate that women as a class must in general use ‘cis’ as a self distinguishing term to mean ‘not a transman’.

Ok, so cis means 'not trans'. According to Stonewall, to feel discomfort with your gender role means you fall under the definition of trans. By that extension, cis means one is comfortable with the gender role enforced on them by society.

Even if I didn't fall under the definition of trans, I still couldn't be labelled cis because that label does not apply to me.

If you want to declare yourself as happy with gender stereotypes then go for it, but I cannot label myself as something I am not.

What is wrong with saying cis and trans to describe whether or not you identify with the gender you were born with? It's similar to saying straight, gay, bisexual etc to describe your sexuality

It’s a bit like calling somebody a heathen - meaningless if you don’t subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, in this case beliefs about gender identity.

On the other hand heterosexual just means opposite sex attracted. I suppose it would be offensive if applied to somebody who didn’t believe in the concept of sexual attraction.

I would reject the ‘cis’ label for myself because i regard it as superfluous and pernicious. This is because it is a descriptor that comes from a belief system that many of us completely reject, because the beliefs revolve around sexist stereotypes that are harmful and are homophobic and specifically misogynistic. Anyone else can go ahead that’s their thing though.

I don’t think the below is a logical justification for using ‘cis’ as a prefix (if this was the reason?):
As my trans friend said to me, that she is always going to be a transwoman. Nothing is going to change that.

True, your friend can never become a woman. Nobody can become the opposite sex, everyone knows that. But if they are a ‘transwoman’ ie biologically male and transvestite or transsexual, then they already do not come into the category of woman. So it’s perfectly appropriate that they are not claiming to be a ‘woman’ or a ‘trans woman’ because that would be trying to be included into an inappropriate category group, women which by definition they’re not part of.

So to differentiate women from transsexuals or transvestites, no further embellishments are needed, because being included under ‘women’ is a category grouping that in reality can not be changed by what men do, and which should not be changed by what some men happen to want. So women can stick with the standard, factual category of woman.