Are the wife and children really fine?

How could a wife and children be ok after going through such a shock?

Rather than be expected to 'be kind', I think they need kindness and therapy to move on with their lives. They need to have their trust of others rebuilt and to feel special and brave when they continue forwards with their lives.

The situation of women in Afghanistan doesn't lend itself to any kind of analysis under the new identity system, as we have no idea how various people in that country might identify and as the women and girls there are oppressed on the basis of biological sex and absolutely are not privileged.

I am uncomfortable with the label 'cis,' because it does not mean the same as "someone who has never transitioned".

It means something more: "Someone who has an abstract identity which just happens to coincide with their biological sex but is not based on biological sex." And the 'cis' person is argued to be comfortable with that identity.

So there are two forced parts to the definition: First, that everyone has an abstract identity not based on biological sex, and, second, that those who do not transition are comfortable with that identity.

My apologies for not being on topic...

I’m bowing out now.

To go back to the OP: Of course the women and children aren’t ‘fine’ with it.

It certainly is worth arguing. Of course.

If people with a bad faith agenda weren’t so keen on barging in everywhere and derailing, the discussions could actually develop around the actual topic or issue.

I’m not going to let it go the first or second time - because it is vitally important - but after that they deserve to be ignored.

I apologise if I offended you, TinselAngel. But the Newspeak and deliberate obfuscation around the issue seemed to be very relevant to me. By the arguments of some posters on here, since TWAW and sex=gender, you were never married to a man in the first place. The point seemed worth arguing.

It’s very difficult to let it go when people deliberately use derogatory, offensive and inflammatory language to try to cancel out women’s biology and everything that comes with it (good and bad, sadly), so I do understand why women argue back (I do too) but once they have demonstrated that they are acting in bad faith they should be entirely ignored and the discussion should get back to where it started.

Anyway. I feel strongly that we should respect the discussion that OP wanted to have here and also the women who have spoken about their experiences. The thread has been derailed for long enough.

Well I take it we can refer correctly and accurately to the class of men who would like to be female then. Great.

People with penises cannot be women.

I reported the insistent use of cis, despite repeated request from posters and board guidelines, and they've decided to let it stand. Unsurprising but disappointing

Yes, if woman refers to gender identity rather than sex I am certainly not cis.

As always, these people want to have their cake, eat it, and yours too.

The language around this is all designed to conflate sex with gender identity and make it impossible to articulate the concept of a sexed female. It is literal Newspeak, it's not satirical. That's also why this frequently goes along with exploiting people with DSDs, as if that's got anything to do with being trans.

Although hijacking disability is a low I haven't seen before.

Yes, if woman refers to gender identity rather than sex I am certainly not cis.

This is it for me. If we're naming by identity rather than sex, then I, like so many others on this board, am agender, gender queer, or perhaps non-binary, depending on how they are being defined at any given time.

Under the Stonewall Umbrella, that makes us trans. If we're trans, then people to stop telling us to shut up because our opinion as 'cis women' doesn't matter, when apparently we're actually part of the very group they're trying to protect.

TRAs were outraged when a former poster here declared to her workplace that she was "gender free". A perfectly reasonable description for a GC woman who doesn't believe in gender identity, so is not "cis".

If woman means sex, then transwomen are not women.
If woman means some kind of mysterious gender identity, then the vast majority of posters on this board are not women, cis or otherwise.
One of the other of these must be true.

This is it for me. If we're naming by identity rather than sex, then I, like so many others on this board, am agender, gender queer, or perhaps non-binary, depending on how they are being defined at any given time.

Under the Stonewall Umbrella, that makes us trans. If we're trans, then people to stop telling us to shut up because our opinion as 'cis women' doesn't matter, when apparently we're actually part of the very group they're trying to protect.

If we're naming by sex, then men aren't women, and men therefore need to stop telling women that they have no right to name themselves.

Either way, no one has the right to compel us to accept a descriptor or prefix, whether they consider it factual or not, while also insisting that we must respect the choices of other groups to name themselves.

Once people show they have absolutely no intention of being respectful and acting in good faith it’s better just to ignore them completely. They won’t get another moment of my time.

It's amazing isn't it. The respect only goes one way. Misgendering someone trans is literal violence. Yet women ask for respect in not using the offensive word cis and none is given.

Here's an appropriate word: Hypocrisy.

Now out of courtesy is someone really and in good faith said they didn’t want me to refer to them personally as cisgender, that’s fine. But anyone demanding I stop using the term altogether to refer to the broad group of people who are not transgender can sod off.

Now out of courtesy if a transwoman really and in good faith said they didn’t want me to refer to them personally as a man, that’s fine. But anyone demanding I stop using the word 'man' altogether to refer to the broad group of people who are men can sod off.

That OK with you TeaKlaxon?

It's a real shame that what started out as a promising thread about concern for a wife and children coping with the transition of their husband and father has been diverted into a circular language discussion which is really going nowhere as you can't get anywhere with the deliberately obtuse.

All orchestrated by Elaine and cheerleaders. They have done this on several threads now and is surely no accident.

I don't know why these people think we can't see what they're doing.

They can, it's part of the gaslighting thrill.