Why 'Cis' is unnecessary

^^

In essence:

Believe what you like.

Leave me in peace.

If you don't, do not get surprised if I stop being naice and tell it to you like it is.

if It was widely- even universally- accepted it would be about 5 minutes before it started to be called a “dog whistle” that had been invented by TERFS

My feeling is that if some idiotic women want to call themselves "cis-women," well, that's on them. Let them wear their badges of shame like the sniveling lapdogs they are. But leave normal women out of it.

I'm an unbeliever in The Ideology. Therefore I'm not participating in their newspeak - primarily geared toward female erasure - or engaging in any more elaborate linguistic contortionism.

It's long been extremely scary, worrying and dangerous for women. It's also repetitive, tedious and long past exhausting.

I am so, so done.

YouSirNeighMmmm · I agree, I was saying that woman does not need a prefix when discussing transpeople. Clearly there is no such thing as 'trans', because one cannot identify such a thing whereas binary sex is obvious.

No worries @AllThingsServeTheBeam , it is so easy to get confused by everything...that is precisely the TRAs aim.

I like the phase that someone could "TWAW at me". 😁

In all seriousness, I'm not even sure that "when you are specifically discussing transgender issues, having a word for people who ARE trans is essential."

Ultimately, in a world based on biological reality, whether someone is a man or a woman is absolutely essential to know. When discussing the issue of where a man goes to the the toilet is there really a need for two words to describe men who need to use the men's? "Men" seems to cover all male people who should use the men's.

There is no such thing as a trans person - for trans people to exist there would have to be a way of telling trans apart from others.

There is such a thing as someone claiming to be trans - but claiming you are trans does not make you trans.

But the word for not trans assumes everyone has a gender identity which is fundamentally flawed

But look what I did there - trans and not trans - what's wrong with that ?

Then anyone who is cis gendered has that term to describe themselves if it matters to them

And women can get on being women without having regressive gender assumptions tied to them by implication

"I identify as..." means "I would like to be but I am categorically not..." eg "I am a TW. I would like to be but I am categorically not a woman".

When you are specifically discussing transgender issues, having a word for people who are not trans is essential.

In fact, it isn't. Women are not trans as they are adult female humans, so 'women' is the correct word. You then call men who ID as women 'trans'.

Yes but, I don't "identify as a woman" because I don't need to. I just am a woman. I've never had to identify as one before and if I didn't identify as one I would still be one.

So anyone who says ''I identify as a woman" is very likely to be giving themselves away as someone who is not simply a woman without having to identify as one.

arghh.

So, Cis has no place in any conversation relating to being a woman or a man.

Trans is the only thing that needs definining.

We do not normally define ourselves by the things we are not, because there are so many things we are not that there isn't enough room on this website for people to have a conversation that ever defines all the things people are not.

For instance, I am not, have never been & will never be a person who likes dogs.
What is the prefix I should have to include that?
Or the one to say I am not a peadophile?
Or the one to say that I am not fully sighted?
Or the one to say that I am not tall?
Or the one to say that I am not allergic to peanuts?

etc....

Nobody defines themselves by adding prefixes for things they are not in everyday conversation or any other.

People who define themselves as trans ADD that to the normal word because the normal word that defines everyone else does not apply to them in a way they can use.

They define their difference from the norm, not their normality.

Just as when I say I am partially sighted, that does not mean everyone on this site has to go round announcing if they are fully sighted in every conversation just in case I see it & have a personality transplant that would make me feel invalidated by their normal sight.

Only men need to identify as women.

I have never ever met a single person in my life who can give me a definition of what they mean by "gender" without resorting to stereotypes. Never. The same applies to "cis".

(My username is obviously a more succinct explanation )

Sorry. I thought you were TWAW at me. I see what you meant now.

100%.

How can anyone be cis gender when they don't believe in gender identities.

What do we call men and women who simply have a sex and not a gender identity.

So, if you answer the question "are you transgender?" "No", then you are cisgender.

Reminds me so much of:

"Do you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour? No? Then you are a sinner damned to the fires of hell. What?? It's just a factual label!"

So, if you answer the question "are you transgender?" "No", then you are cisgender.

Nope. It just means 'no I'm not transgender'.

Are you a Christian? No.
Are you a pagan? no.
Are you a member of a political party? no.

So many things I'm not that I don't define myself in terms of.

Women are allowed to speak for themselves in whatever terms they like without others imposing their values onto them.

Absolutely. And if I'm being told that I must permit a believer in this faith to call me terms I disagree with and find offensive, then they must permit me in turn the same courtesy. For example to use words such as man.

Either everyone respects language in this way or no one does. Dadjoke needs to pick one.

As I may have said up thread... surely if women are cis women, and trans women are women, then women need to be called cis women in order to be validated as old fashioned cunty women, and when we all start calling trans women "cis", then we can go back to using "women" and the world will be OK again.

Absolute nonsense from top to bottom. I'm tempted to say that even if there were no concerns about vulnerable "trans kids" and women's rights and LGB rights, fighting this ideology would still be an absolute priority. Forced lying and the complete destruction of logic, reason and the meaning of words is just so so wrong without getting even into the real issues.

Last time I checked, I wasn't being demanded to call myself a gentile or heretic by jewish or christian groups who were lobbying our government and various institutions and large corporations.

If thype of language is being used by other religious groups, then its internal amongst believers and is not pushed onto others in a coercive way to shame them into believing they have some sort of privilidge over other that they should give up.

As I said before, which is conveniently ignored, the purpose and the point of the word 'cis' is to undermine women and remove power (that they already lack) from them. Its a term to emotionally blackmail with.

When used in the form of 'cis women and women' as it is by a minority it lays bare the intention of its use.

Again, we have these trojan horse comparisons which are utter bollocks being used to piggie back off and suggest a neutrality which the word does not possess.

Once again we have a man telling women what they should be saying and how they should react. They are defining women's identity for them. This is the crucial and singlar point that Dadjoke makes in pretty much EVERY SINGLE post they make and can't get their head around when women say 'no'.

Women say no. Women are allowed to speak for themselves in whatever terms they like without others imposing their values onto them. (Cos we aren't Iran).

2. Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

Yes sure. But the terms men and women refer to a biological fact, and every adult human is one or another and cannot change. The terms transmen and transwomen refer to a societal construct which can. They are not equivalent classes of words.

No, people who aren't trans are men and women. People who are trans are trans men and trans woman. HTH