Why 'Cis' is unnecessary

The people who are not are called cisgender. It just means "not transgender."

Obviously you are liberty to call people whatever you like using language of your choice in your own conversations, however rude or offensive or unfairly/incorrectly/coercively labelled those people may find it. I am not a control freak with odd desires to control other people's language when I'm not there.

Obviously you will be extending me the same courtesy?

If you are discussing Jewish people, then "gentile" is perfectly reasonable term.

I hear "heretic" is making a comeback too.

The meaning of gender ideological language changes by the day. Didn't cisgender used to mean "a person whose gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth"? Why was this abandoned? Perhaps it was too easy for women to avoid being labelled as "cis" due to "gender identity" being such a weak concept.

What's interesting though is that many gender ideologues argue that it IS possible to be neither cis or trans. Apparently many non-binary people do not identify as either and that is considered to be acceptable. So the definition that "it just means "not transgender."" isn't quite right is it?

People who aren't trans are men and women. People who are trans are men and women. HTH

No. The people who aren't trans are men and women

In the context of discussing transgender issues, there are people who are transgender and people who are not. The people who are not are called cisgender.

Not by me they're not. Because it would be rude.

If you are discussing Jewish people, then "gentile" is perfectly reasonable term.

Your manners need a review.

When you talk about people who are not Jewish, to or in front of people who are not Jewish, you normally use the terms that people who are not Jewish find acceptable. I consider "non-Jewish" or "not Jewish" more polite and those are the terms that I (and other people who understand the benefits of courtesy) would normally use.

It is exactly the same for people who are not transgender. You use the terms that they find polite. Cisgender is not among them.

No, it makes no difference what you think transgender means, or even whether you think it's valid. In the context of discussing transgender issues, there are people who are transgender and people who are not. The people who are not are called cisgender. It just means "not transgender." So, if you answer the question "are you transgender?" "No", then you are cisgender. Even if you think that transgender women are not women, they are still transgender.

If you are discussing Jewish people, then "gentile" is perfectly reasonable term.

Cis (as used by TRAs) appears to mean real.

It's actually a massive home goal because transpeople are the opposite of real so if you use Cis you are saying transpeople are fakes.

Why TRAs are so obsessed with pointing out that transpeople are not really what they say they are in this way is a mystery.

Everyone with a brain already knows what transpeople are not, so insisting on pointing it out even when you are talking about regular people who don't believe in gender ideology seems a bit much.

Oh yes, I agree. A flagrant air of "transwomen can woman better than any woman ever womaned in the history of women."

Reminds me of Karl Pilkington talking about his dad's pal "Jimmy the Hat"

"Why did they call him that?"
"Because he never wore a hat?"

Assuming that’s how the genderist attempted to explain it, their mistake was in describing “woman” as a gender.

In case any other genderists are reading and want to avoid making the same linguistic error, here is a brief helpful guide: “woman” is a noun describing an adult human female, the way “mare” describes an adult equine female or “vixen” an adult vulpine female. The word pertaining to gender is “feminine”.

Outside the subject of organic chemistry, use of the word “cis” is - to be linguistically precise - completely redundant and irrelevant arsewipery.

Haha brilliant.

Its something else when a man comes to a thread to tell women they MUST have another name to satisfy the males isn't it?

8. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

Okay, Real Women will do.

Sex-accurate language, not just pronouns.

Absolutely I would try to be polite by default. And 'politeness' could easily be coerced from me for self-defence.

It is not impolite to use sex-accurate pronouns when referring to someone in their absence.

I agree with you. I do however think that some people (and maybe even you in certain circumstances - such as a women's toilet where a "TW" is being aggressive) wish to prioritise politeness.

I can see circumstances where I would be polite. A cousin is getting married and their partner has a friend who is a TW. The wedding reception is not the place to correctly sex someone and get into a debate. I hope to NEVER again be put in a position where I feel obliged to be polite.

I agree that if your priority is politeness to people who claim to be trans then trans woman for men, and trans men for women makes sense.

It does not make any sense, and You've explained why in your next paragraph:

I am very uncomfortable with the implication that a trans woman is someone in a group that is a sub-set of women,

If a male rejects the descriptor 'man' then the only rational descriptor is Trans-Identified Male. It is completely irrational to call him a transwoman because he is not in any way a woman.

MNHQ do not like us using the TIM/TIF descriptors to refer to people with trans identities. However, in this discussion we are not calling any individuals by these descriptors. We are discussing the use of language. So I hope these posts stand. Similarly the use of sex-accurate pronouns to describe people of a specific sex.

I agree that there is no reason to change the words man and woman.

I agree that if your priority is politeness to people who claim to be trans then trans woman for men, and trans men for women makes sense.

I am very uncomfortable with the implication that a trans woman is someone in a group that is a sub-set of women, and I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we should accept what someone claims to be based on trust, when it makes no sense, cannot be defined, they are seeking to destroy other people's rights of the back of the claim and they might be lying.

If they were born a woman, but want to be a man instead of calling biological men who 'identify' as men 'cis' they should just accept trans man. I don't know what the answer is. I don't want to accept a label I do not want to be called.

Sorry, are you saying a man who is trans should be described as a trans man (or are you saying trans woman)?

My increasingly hard-line position is that there are men and women, AHMs and AHFs. In the context of whether TW should be in women's spaces there is no point discussing TW - there are men and women.

In other contexts TIM and TIF make sense (Trans Identifying Male and Female).

In the context of meeting a TW who made no claim of being a woman or destroying women's spaces I think I'd be happy to use "she" and TW, in a similar way to how a gay friend of mine referred to Freddie Mercury as "she" (my friend had met and did not like Mr Mercury!).

In the context of a debate the simplest description which is honest and accurate and is not based on trust a TW is a man who claims to identify as a woman. This of course poses the questions "what does "identify as" mean?"; "in what way does it make sense for a man to identify as something that they categorically are not and can never be?"; and "the claim itself is meaningless to me, but can we even trust that the claim means anything to the person making it?"