Are the wife and children really fine?

In the same way that in most contexts we don’t need to use the adjective disabled about some women and able bodied about others. But if we were discussing the impact of the cost of living on women, it might be useful to be able to say that disabled women are likely to feel the effects of the crisis more than able bodied women.

That doesn’t mean we have to distinguish between disabled and able bodied women in every context - but in contexts where the disability is a relevant issue it is helpful to be able to do so.

Do you respect those we want to be referred to as they/them but not when a woman doesn't want to be called a cis woman?

[quote Annette32123]@TeaKlaxon
But it’s a term you can only use to refer to people who identify as cis. If they don’t, you can’t.

I wouldn’t dream of telling someone I have decided they are trans. Or gay. Or disabled. Or white. Unless they believe they are those things, it would be deeply oppressive of me to force my interpretation of their identity onto them.

You are saying it’s ok for you to do that because it’s handy. That really isn’t a defence. Being too lazy to use someone’s preferred term isn’t ok.[/quote]
Disagree. There’s a difference between telling someone how they identify, and putting an accurate label on what they themselves tell us they identify as.

So it’s not my place to tell someone whether they are transgender or not. But if they say they are not transgender, then simply using an accurate word to describe that state of being is reasonable.

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.

I don't care if people want to use meaningless labels about me, it's quite useful and illuminating however to highlight the hypocrisy of the "respect my identity" brigade.

For what it's worth though, I don't care if you want to call yourself a ciswoman or the Mighty Mekon of Venus. But you don't get to dictate to us what we call ourselves and you certainly don't get to tell us that there's no such thing as a woman.

This. Not my meaningless in-group label, not my ideology, not my circus, not my monkeys.

Ok. So in what situations might they need the prefix? And why?

Brave and stunning situations, or taking women's places in sporting competitions?

Transwomen and transmen should not be ashamed of who they are. They should live their lives in peace. And if men give them any trouble, the police should act.

Why do we need a new word to help identify biological women ? There is already one - women

@TeaKlaxon
But it’s a term you can only use to refer to people who identify as cis. If they don’t, you can’t.

I wouldn’t dream of telling someone I have decided they are trans. Or gay. Or disabled. Or white. Unless they believe they are those things, it would be deeply oppressive of me to force my interpretation of their identity onto them.

You are saying it’s ok for you to do that because it’s handy. That really isn’t a defence. Being too lazy to use someone’s preferred term isn’t ok.

I couldn’t give a toss if you or anyone else uses it. It is an accurate and useful word in some contexts and if you actually give a shit about compelled speech you’d be addressing your criticism to people who try and prevent others from using the term.

There have been various posters, across various threads over the last couple of days absolutely determined to use the slur cis and to insist that other posters use it to refer to themselves.

Is this the new thing by MRA's? No debate/no platforming has lost it's power so enforcing compelled speech (and not even in terms of going along with the courtesy of 'preferred pronouns' but actual compelled speech in terms of how women refer to themselves) seems to be the next big thing.

No. I'm not going to refer to myself by a made up, nonsense term. Keep insisting all you like. No.

And we’ve already explained trans is a prefix. I even provided evidence.

I'm going to bed in a minute, but Tea, while you're there, can you answer my questions from the previous page? The stuff about why it's progressive and inclusive to propagate a self-contradictory statement that enables male people to take opportunities, medals and allocated spaces from female people, break their skulls and deny them single-sex spaces in places like hospitals and prisons, where attacks have already taken place. Ta.

Why are women not women while transwomen are transwomen?

But that is not what they say though - they say they are women, and this dreadful word cis has been invented to turn proper/biological women into ciswomen.

Apropos nothing, I’d kill for a slice of lemon swiss roll and a nice cup of tea right now.

They are fruitcakes

I am a cake.

In answer to the original question by the OP: no, of course they’re not fine

Philosophy time.

If a woman who is Objectum-sexuality falls in love with an otherkin man who identifies as a can of coke, are they a heterosexual couple?

@AngelinaFibres

Be still my beating heart…..I love a good glass of ribena!

I’m pointing out that adjectives don’t diminish someone’s gender.

Being male diminishes someone's being female.

I have been indetifying as a glass of Ribena for years.

The Ribenaberries were cannibals. Think about it.

I’m pointing out that adjectives don’t diminish someone’s gender.

@mnhq - can you please reinstate my post? There was nothing offensive in the post and it is entirely in keeping with the beliefs of the otherkin. If anything @TeaKlaxon appears to have been denying the existence of the otherkin, which is pretty off.