A thought about 'cis'

The default in law is inclusion, and exclusion requires "legitimate and proportionate" reasons.

Any organisation which wants to make the case for same-sex exemptions can do so. It's a very high bar. Obviously, a group for pregnant people or a cervical cancer support group is exempt.

Most women's domestic violence shelters support trans women and have done for many years. I don't know of any organisations with single-sex bathrooms which have banned transgender people though I am happy to be proved wrong. I think there would be a strong case that it's not legitimate and proportionate.

@Ereshkigalangcleg I don't know of any case law which establishes that women's dignity, privacy or safety are undermined by the mere presence of trans individuals.

Important addendum: don't use it about other people without their consent just because you want to use it or they may tell you to Foxtrot Oscar

Indeed. It's based on a framework I don't believe in. The only way I will accept the word simply means "not trans" is if a "trans woman" is a female person who identifies as a man. Not the other way round, because I don't believe in gender identity ideology and I'm not going to accept that males can be a type of women. Category error.

ErrolTheDragon

The bit on pronunciation left most of us none the wiser. However, in the one context where Cis- is commonly used nowadays ie chemistry, it's pronounced 'sis'. So I'd have said that's it's accepted pronunciation in modern English regardless of what may be the case in Latin itself.

Sorry!

The point is that the classical pronunciation of the initial consonant would have been a hard sound, as in kitten.

I don't generally think there's any point in bellyaching over pronunciation changes in loan-words as they get established in the English language, but I make an exception when any term gets frequently used with "it's Latin/French" as its main justification for usage. If you're trading on a word being from another language (perhaps because that language has intellectual connotations in our culture...), then damn well use authentic pronunciation then. Don't pick and choose.

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

Yes, and privacy, dignity and safety are objective grounds, and are the reason any males can be excluded.

I disagree that the default is inclusion and would argue that in the case of sex-based rights the default is exclusion and that inclusion needs to be justified.

Well put.

With the first justification being: the inclusion of a male person will not actively or potentially exclude any females from the group, resource, space or service who are unable to share a mixed sex space. And the second that it does not change or alter the core purpose of a group, service or resource to be less useful to or focused upon female users, when it was formed to meet a female specific need. The third should be that no other space, service or resource exists for the male user that provides mixed sex provisions.

Perhaps @DadJoke can give examples of some gender-based differences between men and women that would be legimate and proportionate reasons for exclusion of the basis of gender?

That is a really interesting question. How could you exclude on the basis of gender? I don't know and am looking forward to hearing the response.

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

I disagree that the default is inclusion and would argue that in the case of sex-based rights the default is exclusion and that inclusion needs to be justified. The clue is in the term "sex-based".

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

That sounds great in theory. In practice we see training and advice being given that misrepresents the law so that organisations do not believe they can make even the provisions that would be legitimate and proportionate, either because they think it is not allowed, for fear of a mob attack on their reputation or to avoid expensive litigation.

So we end up with the ludicrous situation that a group of female-bodied people who want to discuss the challenges and realities of being female-bodied in a space without male-bodied people are being told even that is not a reasonable and proportionate reason, and having to go to court at their own expense to prove it is a reasonable thing to do.

As female people all over the world can tell you, a "right" or opportunity that is in theory open to you but society makes it impossible for you to take up is no right at all.

And honestly, I struggle to think of any single "gender" scenario where the fundamental reason for exclusion would be gender rather than sex.

Typically single sex spaces exist to counteract the encroachment of male-bodied people over female, and single sex opportunities exist to counteract the sexist social construction of society. Both of these are predicated on sex not gender.

I really can't see why any of the single-sex provisions we have today would have come into being had gender and not sex been the motivating factor. In fact, I'd even say that any such setup is likely to unfairly exclude non-trans males because I simply cannot conceive of a need shared by all "women" (in the gender identity sense) and no men that could meet the legitimate and proportionate test.

But then, I think the only difference between men and women is the fact of our sexed bodies. Any social differences flow from that either as legitimate differences in physical capabilities or constraints that need to be accommodated, or as sexist constructions that, while potentially giving rise to single sex needs in the short term, fundamentally need to be challenged and dismantled not solidified as meaningful in their own right.

Perhaps @DadJoke can give examples of some gender-based differences between men and women that would be legimate and proportionate reasons for exclusion of the basis of gender?

And yes. When you drill down to individual studies you can see the flaws instantly.

Small cohort, self referral, etc etc etc

It is NOT a study that identifies a gene for trans, gay, gender etc. It is a group of studies that have identified a wide range and number of genetic areas that are common to people with a wide range of non conformity. Some studies looked at homosexuality and others at trans individuals and notes that there a a large number of small sections of the human genome that are common on those groups.

It doesn't mean they are causal. Or even that they might be predispositive. They don't know what they mean. One of them is in receptors to smells - hypothesis is that it could influence pheromone preferences.

That sort of thing. All current findings and general hypotheses are about 10 stages from being considered influential in anything, let alone sexuality or gender dysphoria etc.

It's just the continued exploration of the human genome - and the misrepresentation of any findings.

Tiresome!

“This is a paper on the hereditabilty of gender identity.
www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2018-polderman.pdf”

Ok, so this paper hypothesises that gender identity is influenced by genetics in a polygenic fashion. (This paper doesn’t say it is a fact):

“We have performed a comprehensive, structured lit- erature review on the heritability of gender identity, gender nonconformity, and related constructs to evaluate evidence that genetic influences are among the biological factors that influence variation in gender identity. We hypothesize that gender identity is a multifactorial complex trait with a her- itable polygenic component”

Within this paper, only two papers are referenced as having any evidence that gender identity is inheritable.

The first is
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Female Sexual Orientation, Childhood Gender Typicality and Adult Gender Identity, Burri 2011

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021982
They state
“Univariate genetic models indicated modest genetic influences on sexual attraction (25%), AGI (11%) and CGT (31%). ” [AGI= Adult Gender Identity.]

However, they sadly assessed gender identity by using a questionnaire purported to measure masculinity and femininity “Assessment of participants' self-concepts as masculine or feminine (AGI) was computed using four items comparable to those used by Bailey et al. [19]. Example items include “I don't feel very masculine” and “I pride myself on being feminine”.

So, there are a number of problems with this but the greatest one I see is that the questionnaire really only measures self-reported conformity to gender stereotypes. And we know from the orthodoxy that gender nonconforming/conforming have nothing to do with gender identity because people conform/nonconform for various reasons to include environmental and societal pressures. So, to use masculinity and feminity stereotypes and self reported conformance to these as a proxy for gender identity, fails at the first hurdle.

The second paper referenced is a bit older.
Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Bailey 2000

“Continuous Gender Identity.This scale (CGI) consisted of seven items taken from . The items assessed participants' self-concepts as masculine or feminine (e.g., “In many ways I feel more similar to women [men] than to men [women].”) using 7-point rating scales.”

Again the proxy of masculine vs feminine stereotypes to measure gender identity.

gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science

No, you've got that backwards: the gender critical approach relies on biology, not beliefs and feelings. Gender identity is more aligned to religious beliefs as it has no scientific basis.

Sex and gender identity are both real.

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science Eh????

Such confusion.

Sex is identified at birth,
Gender assumed / assigned, based on our expectations of boy and girl babies.

I have no idea whether any degree of gender identity is innate, or acquired. Not for myself, or others.

But what difference does it make? Whether innate or acquired it is based in a body that physiologically cannot change sex.

I never wanted to be constrained by gender stereotypes and discrimination, hence becoming a feminist.

I don’t want Trans / GNC people to conform to any gender stereotype due to social pressure either.

But there are some cases where however much I will defend Trans peoples’ rights to live hassle and prejudice free, my sex-based rights are necessarily deserving of protecting.

[quote Piapiano]**@JustPassingThrough3* and @DadJoke* if cis women and trans women are both subcategories of woman, how do you categorise woman?[/quote]
I'm just going to repeat this question again as it seems that it is being ignored...

gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science.

Not at all, it's the other way around. Obviously. Since the whole concept of gender identity is of a gendered soul, with the view of heresy for not participating in the faith and its tenets.

There are those of us who don't believe in it over objective reality and facts, or believe that anyone should be compelled to participate in a belief they do not hold, or have their language compelled to fit someone else's belief system. Or have to accept the assigning of a political label that enforces self identification in and participation in something they neither believe in nor agree with and find actively repressing.

Be who you want. Identify as you want. Dress how you want, name yourself as you want, go for it. I have no wish to control others (or their language or their labels or their self concepts) at all. However the limits of personal expression are other people's rights of the same.

I don't use the word cis. I won't use it or accept it being forcibly applied to me. I have no problem with someone using it to name themselves if they so choose in the path of their own personal beliefs. I'm not a believer myself.

DadJoke Gender identity is a very, very straightforward and almost universally recognised concept in psychology.

The concept is very widely recognised; your definition of it is not. Specifically the idea that it's innate, rather than acquired through socialisation. It encompasses the general awareness of being female or male in a given society, including expected social roles.

It seems bizarre to me that you have an almost religious resistance to the idea of it. Why would that be?

We are resistant to the idea that people should think/feel/behave a certain way because of their biological sex. Because it's sexism. Why should people be restricted in this way, not to mention the awful things that result (violent toxic masculinity, for example)?

You seem to forget that gender isn't randomly assigned at birth. Its assigned on the basis of (perceived) biological sex. The very concept of gender is sexist to its core.

The fact that gender identity has a hereditable component

You dropped that "fact" in at the end of a piece discussing the hereditability of sexuality. Can you please provide a link to what you consider to be evidence that gender identity is hereditable?

Furthermore, even if a propensity to gender distress can be inherited, that is not proof of a universal quality of gender identity.

And finally, even if a universal quality of gender identity exists, that is not proof that it must therefore be more pertinent to society than physical sex, particularly in the context of a society that, even if acting on a false understanding of sex and gender, has nevertheless deeply encoded sex-based disadvantages.

If gender identity exists, it is far more logical to see it as a separate dimension to physical sex which also exists and significantly affects people's lives rather than some sort of "deeper" type of sex that must to all intents and purposes apply instead of sex, yet paradoxically while keeping the preexisting structures created for sex exactly the same other than switching over who they apply to.

@PlanDeRaccordement the study was searching for candidates for genes associated with homosexuality. It says nothing about the well established degree of hereditabilty of homosexuality.

@Artichokeleaves as you well know I was quoting the Cathoic Church to demonstrate that gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science. The Church starts from the position that homosexuality and transgender people are against nature and works backwards.

The sad thing is that even if there a reliable objective test for gender identity, you would change your views.

This is a paper on the hereditabilty of gender identity.
www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2018-polderman.pdf

I think we can all see that the whole trans cis thing is all indefensible twaddle

@HoardingSamphireSaurus
Well it certainly isn’t based on science or facts. It is firmly in the realm of inner thoughts/spirituality and as such should be classified as an emerging religious belief.

The fact that gender identity has a hereditable component shows that it is something real.

Sorry, where is this proven to be fact?

@DadJoke

“says "Twin studies and other analyses of inheritance of sexual orientation in humans has indicated that same-sex sexual behavior has a genetic component.". Is referring to what prior studies have said, not this paper.

You missed the key statements...
“We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 477,522 individuals, revealing five loci significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior, only partially overlapped between males and females, and do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behavior.”

As in, no matter what genes matched, the person could still be heterosexual or homosexual.

@PlanDeRaccordement it doesn't remotely surprise me that you a quoting a Catholic professor of sociology on this subject. Of course the Catholic Church wants homosexuality to be a choice.

When you read the actual paper it says "Twin studies and other analyses of inheritance of sexual orientation in humans has indicated that same-sex sexual behavior has a genetic component."

"Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many. Overlap with genetic influences on other traits provides insights into the underlying biology of same-sex sexual behavior, and analysis of different aspects of sexual preference underscore its complexity and call into question the validity of bipolar continuum measures such as the Kinsey scale."

They were searrching for specific genes, and made some progress, but this wasn't a paper about hereditabilty as such.

"While there is no single “gay gene,” there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain before birth based on a mix of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses."

Sexuality - your feeling of attraction towards a particular gender is independent of any action you might take. I use it as analogy, because it's something you accept which is an internal sense.

The fact that gender identity has a hereditable component shows that it is something real, or it would be entirely cultural. The fact we can't point at the genes concered is neither here nor there. Mendel demonstrated this.

Before the terminology of sexuality existed, heterosexuals thought of themselves as normal, and that homosexuality was a perversion or abberation.

This is very Euro-centric and Christian dogma assuming. I’d argue that the majority of human populations did not agree with this viewpoint and saw all sexuality as normal and homosexuality not a perversion or aberration.