Yes! Colleague is NOT CIS!

In the context of talking about a group, having terms to define whether a person is in or not in that group makes conversation possible. If you want to talk about transgender people, and contrast them with people who are not transgender, then using "non-transgender" is entirely neutral, says nothing about the validity of transgender identities or their absence.

A similar example "In the United States, for example, about one in ten Muslims are married to Non-Muslims,"

If you don't object to this, but you object to non-transgender, I am not sure what your objection is.

You should not need to change the way you describe yourself though, in order to accommodate trans women.

I am a woman. Twenty years ago, or even five, nobody in my workplace or doctor's surgery or university needed me to categorise myself as anything other than a woman. I didn't need to qualify the word, because the word was pretty self explanatory, and still is. It denotes my biology. Not my love of pink lipstick or push up bras, not the way I choose to sit with my legs crossed daintily to one side, or the way I flick my hair or bat my eyelashes. Not the fact that I feel sexy in high heels. Just my biology. My chromosomes. My reproductive organs. My hormones, which are very different to those of a man. The fact that my body comes with a vagina and the means to carry, give birth to and feed a child. My menstruation. My menopause. All of that is the meaning of the word woman and absolutely nothing else.

Saying cis as a way of denoting a biological woman is nothing more than tautology. The word woman is enough. It's been enough for millenia. Nothing has changed about me, or billions of other women the world over. Why should our identity be relegated and diluted to a mere sub-category of woman, in order to accommodate somebody else's?

Cis my arse. I am a woman. It is enough.

And if you don’t believe in it you end up getting labelled a ‘transphobe’.

And so do women. Real women. That’s why there is no need for the cis pre-fix. Just use transwomen and women. Except ‘transwomen’ don’t want that. Wonder why…

🎯

"non-transgender" does the same job.

No. I reject that completely.
As I said up thread: Lots of people exist who are different from me in some way. But I don't feel the need to use any labels to define myself as "not them".

In the context of discussions about transgender issues - eg pretty much every thread on this forum - differentiating between people who are transgender and those who are not is quite important. "Cis" or "cisgender" is generally frowned upon here, but "non-transgender" does the same job.

There’s already a word for trans women. Why would the vast majority have the word cis applied to differentiate themselves from a tiny minority

But I don't need any additional explanation as to what I am and I certainly don't need a man telling me that I am now in a subset of Female.

Trans can exist perfectly well without the need to demote me, tell me what I am called or intrude on my privacy.

No-one is saying trans people do not exist. What I am saying is that I am not in a subset of womanhood.

If you take the 'cis' prefix, along with the assertion that trans women are women - you end up with a situation where the only people entitled to use the term 'woman' are trans women, and we actual, biological women are relegated to being ciswomen - a subset of our own sex class - and that is entirely unacceptable.

Is Usain Bolt a cis black person then? He was biologically born black. And people who were not born black but now identify as being black exist. So Usain Bolt, he's cis black yes?

Yeah didn't think so. It's only women you want to control.

But this:
I'm happy for trans women if they want to call them selves a trans woman or even a woman.
is contradicted by this:
But I also will be calling myself a woman and won't have that taken away from me by men and TRA's.

If men and TRAs use the word 'woman' then it has been taken away from you, and all of us who are female.

I am a woman. No need for the CIS part. It means nothing to most normal women. If it's not impacting my rights, I'm happy for trans women if they want to call them selves a trans woman or even a woman. But I also will be calling myself a woman and won't have that taken away from me by men and TRA's.
Everyone knows trans people exist. They aren't imaginary, just like Women exist.

Ok, sorry 💐. It's probably best if I don't give up my day job to become a comedian just yet though!

I assumed "pater" = "father", so you are a dad, a bloke (obviously fine) but why would that automatically mean 'someone who belongs to the groups that are apparently out to 'cancel' women'? I don't think blokes are all out to cancel women, are they? Question applies even if you're not a bloke, btw.

Of course, this whole confusion could have been avoided by me simply asking the original PP what they meant!
Sorry for derailing everyone 🙄

A cis woman is a woman who accepts and identifies with sexist ideas of how a woman ought to dress, present and behave and doesn't reject such gender stereotyping as offensive. There aren't many of them about but it's very insulting for anyone to assume that any woman is cis if she doesn't choose to define herself that way.

Well, I guess it could be that. Or it could be a private joke. Who really knows (other than me, obvs)?

I clearly have far too much time on my hands today.

Sorry, I did miss the tone - mea culpa.

I am also at a loss about what the PP meant!

I keep checking my bank statement and just can’t find the direct debit anywhere, nor can I get my hands on the membership badge I must have been issued. More worryingly, I’m also missing the payments from the far right, US Christian fundamentalist lobby which, SM reliably informs me, have been secretly funding us all for years.

Which is a shame, as the mortgage will be a stretch next month without them.

fucking Ironic that biological women are having the label ‘cis’ forced upon them isn’t it.

im a woman. End of.

Pater Power I assume could mean Patriarchy Power.

Okay, I'm getting confused here. A PP said "What a strange username for someone who belongs to the groups that are apparently out to 'cancel' women?"

I don't understand what they meant by that.

I (lightheartedly) asked if you were out to 'cancel' women (obviously assuming that you weren't really). So maybe the jokey tone didn't come across.

But I still don't get what the PP meant by groups that are apparently out to 'cancel' women. I think I am missing something!

Really?! Is there something in the air today?

I’m very glad to hear you’d have an issue with anyone trying to ‘cancel’ women (although what does ‘cancel’ mean to you in this context..? Genuine question).

Transwomen aren’t women though. Cis is both an unnecessary and loaded term when used as a prefix to the word woman/women.

I've visited Uluru. Aboriginal people have lived there for tens of thousands of years. There is a sacred woman's area, where men are Forbidden, virtually on pain of death, and vice versa.

There didn't seem to be any sex confusion or transition there.

As soon as we start gatekeeping trans, it kind of becomes a beauty contest, doesn't it?

I hate beauty contests, they're complete bullshit and nobody should be telling someone 'you're not pretty enough (or you don't pass enough) to get this, you don't get it'.

People like India W love beauty contests because IW is convinced that IW wins the beauty contest and therefore they're great. IW then gets to tell other people they didn't win the beauty contest (cf previous comments galore, IWs twitter history is quite something).

Not born with the attributes of the other sex, conceived as the opposite sex. The physical attributes follow the sex you are conceived as. Development can go wrong or be stunted, but males develop along one pathway and females along a separate, parallel one. No merging or crossover.

And although "trans" doesn't seem to have a clear meaning, nobody has to do anything to their body to consider themself "trans".

The only way is to be born female and then proceed to live your life!