How many women (or men) identify as cisgender?

MumsTheWordFact

We get to be labelled and told what to do because we always have been.

Using more overt or subtle methods in different places at different times.

To way too many men, women are a set of 2D stereotypes. And if we kick at them, we are pushed back to a greater or a lesser extent.

No of course we can't expect to have our choices of name etc respected. All the years of women being called the wrong name, automatically put in certain roles, relegated to second applicant on important things they applied for because there is s man on the scene.

That's all making a fuss, don't be silly, it's tradition, not important, etc etc

This happens and boom! Dead naming. Wrong pronouns are hate speech etc etc.

The stuff with women's titles names etc has been going on since the 70s with slow progress and still women told often by other women to STFU.

and now we have a new externally imposed name.

It's all kind of. New but not new.

So we keep going.

I asked DS2 (14) if he identified as cis. Once I'd explained what it meant he said
"So basically its a load of bull crap. I'm a boy because I have male chromosomes and a penis. Not because of what I like. I'm not cis. I'm just me"
He then said that if likes and dislikes had any bearing on if we were boys or girls then he would have been a girl when he was small as he loved pink, bunnies and all things "girlie" (we didn't have boy/girl things just "things" but he always preferred the traditional girls things much to his dad's annoyance)

We're constantly berated these days for labelling other groups so why do we have to accept a label we didn't create?

10:16Cailleach1

SionnachRua

Sure, I have no problem with it. It's a bit like being European, I think about that very rarely but if asked what continent I'm from, I'd definitely call myself European

But are you really a red fox as per your user name? If you identified as such, would that mean you really are a red fox?

Has anyone ever been asked which continent they are from?

How could that ever be relevant in any context - whether cultural or legal? Beyond possibly someone of Latino/ Hispanic ethnicity possibly wanting to specify whether they had been born in one or other of the 2 political land masses which make up the geographical land mass of North America rather than one of the many political land masses which make up the geographical land mass of South America (and "I'm Canadian/Argentinian etc, etc would be far easier and relevant)

Merrymouse agree with your PP- “I realise that you might dislike the reference to sexism, but nobody has ever explained gender identity in a way that isn’t either sexist or meaningless.”

By asking if you are “cis” it is basically asking if I agree with stereotyping - so no thanks

Sorry completely misread your post. Thought is said “do not have a clear sex”. I really need to start wearing my glasses!

“So it's really not straightforward and I think it's a poor comparison as the vast majority of people do have a clear sex.”

Everybody in the world has a clear sex. You’re either male or female. You can only be born one or the other and you can never ever change your sex.

NiceGerbil

But we are not allowed to ask, its impolite and offensive.

No. I have a special loathing for that label.

FrippEnos

You have to ask. That's the point of pronoun badges/ signatures in emails etc.

I think it would be much easier to get rid of titles (thus solving the whole long running miss Mrs Ms feminist gripe) which are outdated and also a massive pita and (for women at least) are often assumed and not right.

And, clunky as it is, to use they/ them for everything, or a name when it doesn't work to use they.

We've used they when we don't assume a sex in our industry for years and it's fine.

EG the sales person gets the call and then they input the info into the system. Or whatever it might be. This came about to stop like. The CEO will pass it to his PA and she will distribute it by email. That sort of thing.

Again rather than go for the easy answer, which would also solve other problems. We all have to learn new language and then remember who is what even if we've only met them once. I am terrible with names and faces so this seems like a nightmare.

Also if you're having a call with lots of people you've never met, I suppose you'd have to do the research on the company intranet first and makes notes beforehand? And how will this fly internationally?

I asked this a couple of times and not got an answer.

Already it's usual to use English for business if international.

Some people pick an 'English name' to make things easier for us. Now we want to export these new rules which may well not be happening where they are- how is it all going to be explained to avoid offence? I suppose stonewall will have to go global...

Nope

‘Without explaining why’.

I understand that this is the gender-critical perspective; I disagree. (Thank you for the article, it was an interesting read.)

This would mean something if anyone had ever explained gender identity in a way that doesn’t refer to stereotypes.

It’s a bit like me saying ‘sexism is harmful to women’ and you saying ‘I disagree’ without explain why.

I realise that you might dislike the reference to sexism, but nobody has ever explained gender identity in a way that isn’t either sexist or meaningless.

'I thought assuming gender was a total no no but this seems to be the default for people who do not identify as cis.'

Are not out as trans would be a better way of putting that.

The disability thing is interesting.

I have a life long physical disability. When I was young and in and out of hosp, I did not identify as disabled because it was a label I was not emotionally ready to adopt at that age.

Around the age of, late 30s, I did start using it. I had had more than 3 decades to get used to my situation and was more at peace with it.

So I did not identify as disabled, then I did. I did not necessarily appear disabled unless I had to do certain fairly common but also fairly easily avoided things. So depending on how well people knew me, some would have identified me as disabled and some not.

If I had wanted certain benefits, there are thresholds that I would have to have met to qualify. Someone would judge whether i was disabled enough.

So it's really not straightforward and I think it's a poor comparison as the vast majority of people do have a clear sex.

The thing with gender is that you have to ask.

If you've not been asked if you identify as cisgender how can anyone know whether you will understand the message is for you or not? There's also the question about outing people.

So if at work there's something for cisgender women, it would be assumed that I would understand it to be for me. However, as an agender person, although not 'out', it's not.

I thought assuming gender was a total no no but this seems to be the default for people who do not identify as cis.

How is this being addressed? Is it the reason women (but not men for some reason) are increasingly referred to by body parts? So a work thing might say for people with a vagina or similar?

The other point here is that some trans people identify as cis. So what then?

I'd prefer to state my opinion politely and leave it there out of respect for each other's time was what you said on Saturday. And yet here you are still mansplaining

just politely clarifying the role of antonyms in response to an invalid syllogism

Actually, it isn't particularly polite to pick people up on grammatical points. In any case, cis is not an antonym of trans, so your argument doesn't apply. My point was not as simple as you assume; it was that it is just as absurd to say that transwomen are women as it is to say that women (whom you would refer to as 'cis') are male.

The concept of gender identity is not 'complex'. It just breaks down under scrutiny…

I understand that this is the gender-critical perspective; I disagree. (Thank you for the article, it was an interesting read.)

That's because short women are women and tall women are women…

With respect and appreciation for you taking the time to reply, I wasn't making a deep point—just politely clarifying the role of antonyms in response to an invalid syllogism. :)

But sex is undeniable.

To be clear, I recognise that humans exhibit sexual dimorphism.