GC protected belief and use of cis

Sex and gender are different things, yes. But that doesn't mean that they are independent things

Ah, are we back to women have lady brain?

Since you’re keen to elaborate @yeahbutnaw, can you please outline the common features of the gender that women and males who identify as women share?

@yeahbutnaw

I didn't say they were independent things. In fact I acknowledged they were correlated across the global population (did you even read my post?!)

Out of interest, which definition of transgender do you suggest I look at?

Just look at the definition of transgender to understand the relationship.

I wonder who first used this and why... No idea but why is easy, to allow males who identify as women to appropriate the term woman and pretend that their group was just a subset of the female sex , like tall, blonde etc women. The only reason for this term is to validate the idea that transwomen are not male but female.

I wonder who first used this and why... my sister used to call me ‘Sis’ until I explained this new fangled nonsense...

Not sure if this is repeating what others have said, or if I'm expressing it well, but here's my tuppence worth:

Cis = on the same side as.

So cis gender supposedly means your gender 'matches' your sex.

But as we know, gender and sex are different things.

So is this not like saying you are cis -height if you height 'matches' your weight? In what sense could your height match your weight?

What does the 'match' mean in both scenarios?

I guess there is correlation (across the whole population) between gender and sex and gender and between height and weight, but there are to many outliers that to say your height matches your weight or your gender matches your sex is....not very useful?

All the arguments for 'cis' basically mean using it instead of 'real' or 'actual' from what I can see.

The arguments for using it switch around depending on what's being asked - gender and sex are separate things/it's gender identity not gender as the feminist concept/it's comfort with your sexed body etc. but usage always boils down to 'real' - especially how they impose it on people who are obviously female but are off minding their own business rather than navel-gazing about their identity.

And what do you call all the women who don't consider that they have a gender identity (i.e. most women)? Cis assumes people do have a gender identity. Gender identity ideology is built on regressive stereotypes so this cannot be reasonably forced on women who, by the nature of being natal women, have been marginalised all their lives due to such regressive ideologies. It is mis-gendering which for people who are not women we are told is inappropriate. Why can we not be afforded the same respect that others are demanding?

There's never an answer to this from trans activists that doesn't boil down to "one rule for you and another for me, I'm more important and my feelings and "identity" trump yours"

Colluding with 'go along to get along' language is what got us in this mess.

Yes.

Calling me cis is giving me a label that forcibly includes me in a belief I don't have.

Colluding with 'go along to get along' language is what got us in this mess. Being coerced into using such language and conceding seemingly inconsequential items that leads to more substantial declarations (even against your own interest) is an acknowledged tactic that is the subject of a lot of social psychology research. You might recognise some of this from the Stonewall and NHS 'sign the pledge' tactic:

An amazing example is the prison-camp program in Korean War where the Chinese used commitment and consistency pressures to gain compliance from prisoners. Although the American servicemen had been trained to give minimal details (name, rank and number), they gave away much more. How? The Chinese first asked prisoners to “make statements so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist as to seem inconsequential” such as “The United States is not perfect.” Then, once they’d complied with these minor requests, they were gradually pushed to make bigger and bigger declarations. Once they’d agreed that the US was not perfect, they would be pushed to expand on ways in which this was the case – not wanting to be inconsistent, they complied. Then, to remain consistent, they would agree to read their statements aloud in a discussion group, then maybe record it as an anti-American radio broadcast. Finding themselves a “collaborator”, without any physical coercion, the men changed their self-image and performed even more extensive acts of collaboration. The majority of prisoners collaborated at some time. Nobody wanted to appear inconsistent.

The critical act here, apparently, was that they wrote it down. They couldn’t deny the previous step, and pushed themselves into further acts of collaboration to prove their consistency (probably to themselves more than anyone else).

scrumandkanban.co.uk/commitment-and-consistency/

Cis assumes people do have a gender identity. Gender identity ideology is built on regressive stereotypes so this cannot be reasonably forced on women who, by the nature of being natal women, have been marginalised all their lives due to such regressive ideologies.

Exactly. And not believing in gender identity is now a protected belief.

Calling me cis is giving me a label that forcibly includes me in a belief I don't have.

No thanks.

exactly - call all women "women" and when you need to differentiate between cis and trans, use cis and trans. As a biologist, I've never understood the fuss about "cis" tbh. It just makes the discussion easier, where differentiation is needed.

And what do you call all the women who don't consider that they have a gender identity (i.e. most women)? Cis assumes people do have a gender identity. Gender identity ideology is built on regressive stereotypes so this cannot be reasonably forced on women who, by the nature of being natal women, have been marginalised all their lives due to such regressive ideologies. It is mis-gendering which for people who are not women we are told is inappropriate. Why can we not be afforded the same respect that others are demanding?

Jess was very comfortable with Jess’s male genitalia

Yes what did happen to Jess?.

If I recall they had posted about getting their ladystick out at bus stops as well.

If I was a trans woman, I'd answer the question of whether I am a woman with "yes", I the question was "do you identify as a woman" and I'd answer "yes", people would think I am trans. Using "cis" is really an easy way to answer either question fully and unambiguously.

Late to this but this from @CatherinaJTV sums it up doesn't it?

In order to be clear women have to accept an additional label, one that men do not, because otherwise parts of the Twittersphere will assume that they are trans.

The default woman is a man.

Transwomen are women; women are something else.

And that is why so many here are refusing the term. It is incorrect scientifically and socially. The logic behind it is intended to make the word 'woman' all encompassing and so to undermine the rights of women and girls.

Be like Zammo: just say no!

Plenty of transwomen are entirely comfortable with their male bodies. Just changing their expression. Hence 'gender euphoria'.

Yes, and the respectful approach is to accept that people are trans if they say they’re trans, surely? I expect you agree @CatherinaJTV ?

So if for you being ‘cis’ means not wanting to change your body, but there are lots of trans people who don’t want to change their bodies either, do you want to revise your definition?

Whatever happened to Jess? Wasn’t these some investigation happening into the photos?

Jess Bradley for example who vocally declared themselves to be a woman and enjoyed getting their penis out at work?

Was it right that they got to shape NUS policy on women’s rights (the removal of) because they are trans?

I feel comfortable in my female body

Ah, so being ‘cis’ is about not wanting to change your body and being ‘trans’ is about wanting to change it?

Where does that leave female penises?

It isn't

Also some non binary people don't like it as it reinforces the binary.

now you are just being facetious.

No I don't see how a chemistry term is relevant to human sex.

what does it mean now, you think?

I think trans now has a very wide meaning, and includes those who are comfortable with their bodies but have an internal feeling that they are male/female which is different to their female/male bodies.

'why yes. It's the patriarchy/capitalism. That needs to change....'

Well yes plenty of women have been working on the first one for an awfully long time.

How do you suggest those who are interested in changing things that flow from patriarchy, in terms of what words to use for juvenile and adult people who are female?

I'd far rather have a body that functioned normally.

Thank you for taking the point though. I do find statements like that jarring and I know I'm not the only one.