What does CIS mean?

I think the underlying issue was fear of male violence due to homophobia (transpobia which is essentially the same thing when it comes to men beating other men up).

This was back when transsexual was the thing and it was a smaller number of people with dysphoria etc.

It was that which set the idea that some men should be treated as women under some circs. I think using women's toilets was part of the 'proof' that you qualified for a GRC. (may be getting mixed up though).

As the definitions have grown wider and wider the idea that some men can and should be included in X. Essentially on their say so and no one must be allowed to question it. It's a very different matter.

And in the end it really doesn't make sense.

Because loads of men are at risk of male violence. Men who are perceived as gay, weak, effeminate, men who are disabled, of various races or religions etc etc.

The fact that
The risks to other men are never mentioned
The idea of tackling male violence, toxic masculine ideas about men who are different, other, more vulnerable etc is never raised

Leaves me pretty cold.

Why should one group of men get shelter from male violence but not others?
Why is male treatment of other males not on the agenda?

Orgs like stonewall have loads of support, money and influence. Taking this on would help gay men as well.

So why the silence on all of this?

Yes to why segregate anything by gender? In law anyway. Laws around sex specific services, yes. Laws around gender specific services, no, why?

Groups for girly people and butch people don't need to be sex segregated.

Maybe groups like sewing for boys or blacksmithing for girls might want to keep a sex split because they are outreach groups responding to societal stereotypes making it hard for boys/girls to feel comfortable joining those hobby groups. I guess that would fall under proportionate response to a legitimate need. Especially if the usual sewing/metalwork group is open to everyone.

You could create a test that accurately identified and classified gender identity at birth (even 8 billion classifications!), and you would still need specific rights and protections for the people with the large gamete producing body type.

It's all irrelevant to the need for sex based rights which have nothing to do with personal feelings about identity. Oh to have the necessary privilege to believe that anyone restricting liberty gives a flying &*^% about other people's sense of self.

Yeah. Is there anything that needs to be segregated by gender?

That was one of my very first conclusions, and I've stuck with it.

If it matters, then sex is what's important - for sports classification/safeguarding/privacy. All the reasons for the segregation there are based on sex differences.

If it doesn't matter, then it shouldn't be segregated.

If I care about someone's sex for some purpose, I care about their actual sex. Otherwise I'm just going to treat them like a person. I do not see how anyone's gender is relevant to anything. (I'd have to know what it is first...)

This is an excellent point.

We segregate due to sex for very obvious reasons: female physical protection in the case of prisons etc, female privacy in the case of changing rooms and toilets, female anonymity and safety in the case of refuges, female opportunity in the case of sports teams and competitions.

There are real, physical reason for these.

Some people are sorely mistaken that because women and men can join mixed golf clubs and anyone can, for the most part, go where they please, that they must be able to access everything they demand. No, you can't just get anything you want. That's life. There are fucking good reasons why women and girls need certain spaces to be separate from men.

The thing that's being pushed for now as we all know is on stats etc to only collect gender.

Collecting both sex and gender- even with prefer not to say options- is a no-no. Even though it gives a full picture and would benefit trans people more.

The stated objectives simply don't make sense when put against the demands.

It's the opposite to Totally Ridiculous And Narcissistic Simpering.

Your last question, what would presumably differentiate a transman from a transwoman would be the sex they are “assigned” at birth. So (I think) transwomen would be described as females assigned male at birth.

I could be wrong about this, hopefully someone will correct me if that’s the case.

marketing categories?

I find a lot of the issues stem from people pretending things are segregated by gender when actually it's sex. And you cannot change your sex.

Yeah. Is there anything that needs to be segregated by gender?

[quote 30PercentRecycled]Biologically female apparently...

Good on the interviewer for holding forth. And also good on Rachel Mackinnon for answering clearly and articulating her stance. It's more than we get from TRAs on these boards and I found there was some food for thought.

But once you interrogate what she's saying it doesn't really hold water. It's patently unfair for trans women to compete against women. The Olympics aren't divided by gender identity but by sex. Otherwise we'd need 100 different categories.

I find a lot of the issues stem from people pretending things are segregated by gender when actually it's sex. And you cannot change your sex.

Clues that the stated aim (being kind) is not the actual aim:

Happens very rarely indeed to male words. Man, boy, prostate, testicles. Just not on the radar for correction.
The fact that women, including ones who have experienced harm and are trying to help others, are gleefully harassed. While men get a much easier time, and they are usually just commenting and not trying to help vulnerable people, so they are less contraversial targets.
The fact that so many orgs and arms of the media do not put their money where their mouths are. Words like menstruator are saved for items around the rights of women and girls that are not headline, or items about LGBT+. When it's headlines or raising money the words girl and woman, used in the way most people understand, are fine. For some reason.

The BBC and the guardian both talked about, just to take a recent example, the plight of Uyghur women in China, they meant it in the way most people understand it. Adult human female. Why do they do this? Because to write eg Uyghur people with vaginas being subject to systematic rape in China it would cause an outrage. It's so utterly dehumanising. So they don't do it. This is very basic dishonesty. And it shows that the reason for calling women uterus havers etc is not because they think it's the right, clear thing to do. If they thought that they would use it every time it was about female sexed people. And they would do the same for males. EG young penis havers abducted and murdered by rebels.

IF the above is not how the language should be used then I'd love to be enlightened.

Cis woman, female, and female from birth have all been used by trans women.

There's no point in ceding any of it. The only acceptable result is that there are no words for the cunty people in the world, which has massive ramifications.

When you factor in the push from various directions to refer to us in subgroups related to the female parts of our biology it becomes even worse. It splinters the whole thing.

Not women's rights but

Uterus havers rights
Menstruators rights
The rights of people who need abortions / men and women who need abortions
Medical issues globally related to gestation
Etc etc

Then not only is it harder to see the whole picture. But, as fans of 'oppression Olympics' these groups can all be pitted against one another to fight for funding, political change, changes in law, etc etc

And thus feminism is fucked.

If all the cunty women in the world agreed tomorrow to call ourselves hamptys, then the word hampty would be deemed terfy and exclusionary and somehow either banned, or joined.

Biologically female apparently...

Give it five years or less, they’ll be trying to claim ‘cis woman’ as their own as well.

Don't some (eg India willoughby?) already do so?

It’s just the new word for woman.

Give it five years or less, they’ll be trying to claim ‘cis woman’ as their own as well.

Regardless, whatever word applies to a woman with two X chromosomes and a female reproductive system will never apply to them so 🤷🏼‍♀️

"Could you introduce me to your European friend?"

"Sorry, you are going to have to explain what you mean by European".

Note it's not my view that some men should be included in the sex category female. Just making that point.

'What about if I said "could you introduce me to your trans friend" and you wanted to tell me that actually they weren't trans?

What if I said to you "I appreciate that trans women like yourself belong to an oppressed class." How would you tell me you're not trans?'

What rude questions! Do you really go around talking like that shizu?

1. You're not supposed to assume people's gender

1. If the comparison to groups of oppressed women is followed then. Could you introduce me to your lesbian friend? I appreciate disabled women like yourself belong to an oppressed class..

I mean come on.

No one is arguing we shouldn't have words for different races and saying we should all just be "people". Because, yes we are all people but categories matter.

But in practical terms the differences between races are minimal. Without racism they would have very little impact.

Sex, on the other hand has very significant consequences.

So you would be happy to compromise - you don't get called cis, and you, in turn don't call trans women men.*

I can’t speak for everyone of course but I personally never have and never would call a transwoman a man, unless they wanted me to. I would call them as they wished to be called. Doesn’t mean I would think they are the same as someone who was born female, but I would not call them a man.
I would like not to be called a cis woman please. I don’t like it.

Yes, someone suggested on another thread that MTF trans people could call themselves "woman in the head people" and they can ally with all the biologically female people who also consider themselves "woman in the head people" and we can have woman in the head spaces and biologically female spaces. The female woman in the head people could use either of course. Would that be a reasonable suggestion?

Sounds reasonable to me.

I mean in theory you would only need 3 spaces in total...
One for biologically male people
One for biologically female people
One for all the "gender is in your head people" (male or female, trans or cis) who by virtue of being trans (or trans allies) are (apparently) no threat to anyone ever and just want to pee.

You don't need an opposite to trans. Just plain old man or woman will do.

Pissing myself laughing that if you're not trans you're privileged.