Is it OK to be undecided about certain things?

@Veryverycalmnow
Thanks for answering my questions. I did mean 'some' women feel that way.

I have another question and I hope it doesn't offend anybody: Is it important to say 'cis' each time? I don't really like the word. I used to get called a 'sissy' by an ex colleague and it annoys me personally to be described as cis. Who decided on that word? Would it be ok to use a different word?

I use the term ‘cis’ when I want to be clear that I am specifically referring to people who are not trans. When I say ‘woman’ I often mean that to include trans women and to exclude trans men, so if I’m specially talking about women who are not trans I need to specify that. I could say ‘non-trans women’ but that involves typing more letters, and I also don’t believe it’s ideal to define the majority group explicitly by reference to their not being in the minority group - eg ‘non-gay’, ‘non-black’.

I don’t love ‘cis’ as a term either (as you say, it sounds like it would be related to ‘sissy’). I’m not sure who chose it, but I think it was chosen as the natural opposite of ‘trans’ - trans meaning ‘on the other side’ and cis meaning ‘on this side’. The term has been around for quite a long time, and I suspect it might be difficult at this point to replace it with something else, but you never know!

suggests to me that there is a real social category of ‘man’.

This being the social category of biological males, and a single person who has managed to create an illusion so strongly of being a biological male that they are not recognised in surface day to day interactions as not being a biological male.

This is lovely for the person who wishes to live within that illusion and its benefits to them personally.

However it is not all about this one, single, theoretical person.

Should all women have to lose their language for this one person so that this one person does not have to face a jarring of their chosen reality by having to state in their medical notes or respond to a letter that is specific to the needs of someone with what is in fact female biology, but upsets them to have to be reminded of this?

What happens when this one person has a relationship that progresses to sex and they choose not to share that the reality is that they are in fact biologically female? According to the political rightthink they are entitled to not be 'outed' if the person who consented to sex due to believing they were male encounters a situation they did not consent to and feels that they have been used or deceived?

What about those who identify as this sex and would like all the benefits of being part of this social category and illusion but in fact sadly are not able to create the illusion to the degree of this particular theoretical person? In fact that means the social category has to lose all meaning, as it is not fair or possible to try and establish whether one person can successfully create an illusion that few will see through and whether another person is less successful. This in fact results in the situation women now have: of obviously male presenting males in their spaces and no means to tell even which are transitioners and which are male people who identify as men and wish to be in women's spaces for other reasons.

What about where someone's transition is part of a sexual desire for experiences involving members of the opposite sex? Where do the rights of those people using that single sex space come to not be made part of someone else's sexual experience without their consent?

And what are we going to do with those who cannot use mixed sex spaces due to their own needs and vulnerabilities (which obviously matter as much as TQ+ people's do) and use a single sex space in good faith that this is being respected by others to allow them access? Should it be a case of if they can be successfully deceived by an illusion their needs/consent doesn't matter? Or should they stop using spaces at all and give up access because they cannot depend on people respecting sex based spaces and looking for better alternatives that would work for all, and instead have to expect that there will be people of both sexes in this space?

It is complicated, but this is the thing - personal freedoms have to end at the point of removing freedoms and access and equality from someone else. Your right to swing your arms around ends at someone else's nose.

If it makes someone feel right and happy to transition then I'm delighted for them, but people have sex based needs too and solutions have to be found that work for everyone. Not just TQ+ people.

That is a good point. It’s quite a long time ago, but as far as I recall, it was in the evening and it seemed that the few people coming and leaving were mostly staff rather than patients. Also, now I think about it further, I don’t think the ‘pro-life’ vigil was entirely silent - I think there were also prayers and hymns (although I accept that we were probably making rather more noise than them). But I do take your point that, even if our intentions were good, this might not have been the most helpful approach when taking into account the feelings of those using the service on that day.

So... this social category really only applies to trans people that pass. And is based on other people's assumptions about them based on their masculine appearance. And those assumptions are a collection of.... stereotypes....

I think the best way to illustrate it is by thinking of the example of a trans person who ‘passes’. I’ll take the example of a trans man, and think about how they are a man in the social sense, as I know some people dispute that there are any trans women who really pass, whereas I think it would be difficult to claim there are no trans men who pass.

So this trans man is regarded as a man by all those he interacts with - they instinctively refer to him with male pronouns, and consciously or unconsciously hold beliefs and make assumptions about him as a man (which will be highly dependent on their own experiences and biases) - they might assume he is interested in sports, not interested in babies, finds it hard to express emotion, that he’s assertive or potentially aggressive. That he’s more likely to be a lorry driver or doctor than a ballet dancer or nanny. That he’s more likely to be attracted to women than men. Of course, it may be that these assumptions are all incorrect.

On the side of the trans man, he may or may not feel comfortable with all of those assumptions about him. But it feels ‘right’ when he is referred to using male pronouns - it feels like he is being seen as he really is (at least regarding his gender), whereas as female pronouns would feel ‘jarring’. Knowing that other people perceive him to be a man similarly feels right.

The fact that it is possible for this person to pass through the world of social interaction indistinguishable from any other man (even though it is clear on a close anatomical inspection, or through medical tests, that he is a trans man and biologically different from men who are not trans), suggests to me that there is a real social category of ‘man’.

Of course, there is then a separate question about who falls into the social categories of man or women (and whether some people don’t fall within either), and who gets to decide who is in which category. Not everyone who wants to fit with a category will be perceived by others as falling within that category. There is also the question of what significance is attached to those social categories - should it determine what people can do, what services they can access or what spaces they can enter? Or should it just dictate what pronouns are used to refer to them?

As a basic rule of thumb, if to define a group so that you can be part of it means bouncing existing people out of the group, you've messed up.

If 'woman' means people with long hair who like children what do we call the women who have short hair and can't stand children?

If it means people who can't read maps what do we call the women who do?

If it means people who say they have a feminine essence, what do we call the women who say they don't have an essence of any kind, don't be silly?

In all honesty everyone knows this means biological female, they just are trying to jig it to mean 'and biological males who want to'.

Its the same with single sex spaces. If you're a male person who is using a female only space because it suits and fits you and your self expression and you prefer it, and you are ok with bouncing female people out of what is, and you know it, the female only space? Making it inaccessible and excluding of females to 'include' you? No. Not ok. Not unless you believe that males matter more than females, and that renders all this buggering about with sex classifications pointless. Because the actions say you believe sex is binary, fixed, you know exactly who is who and who gets what they want and who doesn't.

Obviously it's fine to be undecided.

Anecdotally, all the people I know who used to be undecided, and quite a few who were initially of the view that "trans women are women" have ended up firmly in the gender critical camp.

In my experience, the more you learn about gender identity theory, the less convincing it is.

Of course it’s good to be uncertain and to question the information you are given, if you don’t question then how are you ever going to have the information you need to separate the facts from the fiction and the science from the feelings.

@aseriesofstillimages thanks for joining in the thread, can I politely ask that you don't use the word cis, many of us find it an offensive and unnecessary term as-well as it being a banned word on this board, woman and transwomen are accurate enough descriptors on here.
That being said can I ask, are there any elements of this debate where your views align with GC views? If so do you debate these points with other people (ie TRAs)?

OP, you are not obliged to use 'cis' for yourself or others. Many women here see the term 'cis' as offensive and ask for people not to apply it to them.

I agree with Wor, here - maybe worth asking why you feel the need to ask permission to ask questions or which words it's okay to use. We do live in a relatively free society. What is it that you're afraid of?

“The wise man knows that he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all.” (Ancient proverb)

You shouldn’t have to ask “Is it ok” when talking about your opinion, even if your current opinion is that you’re unsure. Think what you think and don’t feel a need to ask other people to dis/approve of your thoughts.

I just wanted to quickly say thank you for all the interesting and thoughtful responses and follow up questions, I will come back this evening after work to reply

Being female correlates to having an XX body, and vice versa, in nearly 100% of cases. (I don't know enough about genetics to know the number where this would be questionable). Maybe being generous let's say 99.95%.

Having socially feminine behaviour, characteristics, interests etc - I would accept this as broadly interchangeable for 'being female' if a high enough % of females displayed it, and also a low enough % of males, in order to make it have high specificity and high sensitivity (remember covid testing? These are how well a 'test' correctly identifies the group in question).

For me, I'd say around 95% of females would need to fairly consistently display an agreed set of behaviours, and 95% of males would not, in order for this to be a good synonym for 'women'.

I do not believe this is the case, so I find using any variation of femininity, womanly, ladylike etc to be so poorly correlated with 'female sex' as to be fairly useless at best, harmful at worst as an interchangeable term. So, 'woman' as a 'social definition' is, to me, not a thing, as it doesn't define anything very well. You've got a person who likes playing with children? You can't confidently say that's a definition of their sex.

Now obviously, being female or male say nothing about you as a person. The expectations of a person solely due to their sex (one might define this as 'gender') will shape that person, to varying degrees.
One's sex is vitally important in some parts of life - medical, etc - but should be essentially irrelevant in others. But that's where gender kicks in and a whole raft of prejudices based on that.

The person who gave birth to a child but refused to be called their 'mother' clearly had some deeply held ideas about what that word means, other than purely 'female parent'. You will often see people so unable to even realise they hold these prejudices that they can't let go of them.

‘Your example of being focused on children is partly due to biology and partly because society allows men not to! Your other examples may be true in your own time and place but are not universal.’

I said they are not universal.

‘And exactly what Zero says about what is biologically innate to female, and what is cultural socialisation given to males and females about what females should be and do?’

It’s a great question. I don’t think I know exactly.

‘Yes, more common. However it's a range, that applies to both sexes. Not everyone who focuses on the needs of children is biologically female. Not everyone who likes spot welding is biologically male.’

Of course.

This is the exact issue. It is certainly less common for women to like spot welding. It’s less common for women to like Formula 1. It’s less common for women to follow cricket.

Those are observations, not stereotypes.

The stereotyping comes when people say, ‘How can you like cricket, you’re a woman?’ Or, as the trans activists do, ‘If you like welding you can’t be a woman.’

But it’s actually important to note that some things are socialised into women from childhood and can’t be assumed like putting on a dress. We may not be pleased about that socialisation. We may regard much of it as part of the oppression of women. But it is foolish to deny it exists. We see it every day.

OK with whom?
It’s imperative that you are undecided until you decide on your opinion. Actually it’s unavoidable. If you’re asking if it’s ok not to agree with the group on this board when using it, then I’d say for most posters it’s fine but a few will try and shut you down or scare you away. It’s a group of individuals so some you will admire and gel with, and some not so much.

@aseriesofstillimages

Thanks for answering, although as always it is hard to have a 'conversation' via text. I agree that we have a right to protest, but with your example, while I accept that you believe a loud and vocal support of the right to choose was the best way to protest, I agree with MagnoliaTaint in this example and personally would probably have stood silently with a placard to exercise my right to protest.

I wasn't in Manchester for the Standing for Women rally, but in a situation like that, or a WPUK meeting etc, no one is forced to listen to what the speakers are saying. If you (general you) feel offended, move on! Or pause and listen and either think 'I don't agree with that' or 'I hadn't considered that view' and maybe change your position on part of your belief. As I said in my first post on this thread, my position went from one extreme to the other but I am more accepting of TM and TW now than I was before. I do think it is useful to hear both sides to be properly informed, but I have never yet seen a trans rights meeting advertised either in person or posted online afterwards like the WPUK and SFW meetings are - perhaps I am not looking in the right places? I would love to hear what is said at such gatherings.

As for the rights issue, I totally get that acceptance is wanted, but that is where I think the transwomen are women mantra has caused problems. Before I knew anything about this, if I heard 'transwoman' I thought 'transsexual' but of course transwoman is now taken to mean anyone who says they are and as far as I am aware that includes men with fetishes who get a thrill from performing feminity and being in women's spaces. Acceptance of someone demonstrating their belief isn't a one way street either - I can accept that a man prefers to think of himself as a woman, but he must then also accept that I continue to see him as a man - he can't force me to see him as he sees himself.
I would want to be understanding and show compassion to a person whose body dysmorphia is so bad that altering it is their only option. On the other hand, I don't consent to being a prop in a man's fetish!

It will be no surprise to you to know that my stance is woman = adult human female, so for me:
Women are women
Men are men
Transwomen are transwomen (and are male)
Transmen are transmen (and are female)

The trouble is that while in social situations it is possible to go along with someone else's perception of themselves (pronouns etc) there are situations where sex matters and holds more weight than any self perceived identity in my opinion.

And exactly what Zero says about what is biologically innate to female, and what is cultural socialisation given to males and females about what females should be and do?

The fact that females are having to vigorously try to resist males redefining them when even the police are working against them should be a bit of a giveaway about unequal social power.

Your example of being focused on children is partly due to biology and partly because society allows men not to! Your other examples may be true in your own time and place but are not universal. I am not saying they are not true for YOU but they are no basis for definitions. Indeed, arguing that the definition of woman includes being better at looking after children has been used against having women in the workplace for centuries.

Yes, more common. However it's a range, that applies to both sexes. Not everyone who focuses on the needs of children is biologically female. Not everyone who likes spot welding is biologically male.

The only single uniting characteristic that half the human race has in common is being biologically female. And variants of any kind within that group do not stop it being a specific, identifiable group, even chromosomally. There are only two sexes.

The whole point of arguing all this is purely and simply to try to justify the idea that male people can belong to the sex class of their choice rather than their physical reality. That's it. That's all.

And the obvious sexism in one sex feeling free to wholly redefine the other to their better convenience is front and centre, regardless of how much this minimises, trivialises, tries to control and dictate their experiences, (all of which is about outer male perception of what being female 'must feel like' because women's actual voices... pah, boring) and to try to suppress the diversity and enormous range of what it means to live in a biologically female body? It's nothing progressive or new. This is just common or garden variety old school misogyny.

And do I mean feminine or female? I think ‘feminine’ mostly refers to things that can be taken on and off, like clothing and make-up. But I also think it refers to things that are still socialised (not innate) but not removable either. They’re the common psychological result of typical female socialisation. So an example of that might be female friendships and emotional intimacy. It’s not inevitable that a female person will have such friendships (it’s certainly not what makes them female) but it is far more common for female people to have them than male people. It’s not ‘feminine’ in the way that pink lipstick is regarded as feminine. It’s not female either (as in, an essential aspect of female biology).

So I’m not sure.

What I mean by that is that aspects of male and female socialisation aren’t stereotypes. Women, for example, (in my experience) are more likely to share intimate parts of their personal histories with friends. Men tend to watch porn more than women. Women are often more focused on the needs of children than men. It’s not stereotyping to admit that there are more common female experiences and behaviours, and more common male ones.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean feminine or female behaviour? Can you give some examples of female behaviour that isn't a stereotype or based on biology?