WIBU to ask MNers who think Trans Women are 'Chicks With Dicks' to ...

[KKCupCakes]

Take a look at this article about supporting families of Transgender people by the Gires.org.uk Website to see why that view is so utterly incorrect and harmful?
www.gires.org.uk/assets/supporting-families.pdf

Joan I would think you are right. It's hypocritical though as well as being harmful to women. You believe people but acknowledge they might be lying.

howtorespond I think they feel that some parents are starting to persuade or pressurise their children into believing they are transgender because they show signs of being 'effeminate' ,(sorry if that isn't quite the right word), hence potentially gay. In other words, similar to the situation in Iran, due to religious beliefs. Some of them actually describe it as a cult.
Obviously, all forums can have a 'tin hat' element, so bear that in mind.

Has anyone asked mn to remove posts using cis as a personal attack on those who do not identify as cis?

Flora yes, a single study showed that in general they appear to be similar to men. If the evidence was sufficiently strong that trans women in female spaces pose a risk to women I would reconsider. However, it doesn't actually do that, and not allowing them to use female spaces is not value neutral - it enforces damaging stereotypes of trans women as male rapists. I currently think that the evidence of risk to women is not strong enough to justify it.

Right, we've just had "people who use the term cisgender are analogous to slave owners describing the colour of slaves". That's close enough to Godwin for me. I'm done.

Bye then

A study of every single trans person in a liberal western country over 30 years is waved off as not strong enough?

I agree it is not value neutral. I value women's safety however and as a feminist I will prioritise women.

I don't think we have anything to fear from the use of the word "cis". It will never be used by the general (non-trans) population. It is a word used only by the trans population itself to set in opposition to the word "trans", when discussing their particular issues. Most of the population either dislike it or have never heard of it and I don't believe it will ever gain popular usage.

If you feel it's an inappropriate comparison, why not counter it?

Apparently it's ok to compare women with homophobes and racists and call them bigots though.

all this cis stuff is shite. women are women and thats that

Sorry, Bubs - not sure who that was addressed to?

Siani, sorry . She's been insulting others all morning and persisted despite it being politely pointed out with reasoned counter arguments as to why what she was saying was insulting. But the minute she feels insulted herself, she picks up her ball and goes home, seemingly incapable of countering the point.

TBH I still don't get it.

Your biology and psychology are so entertained they cannot be analysed separately.

The vast majority of people are born one sex or the other.

There is no 'gender' apart from that imposed by society.

So if you are born a man - why declare you are a woman? Surely it makes more sense to widen the gender construct of maleness?

It seems illogical to argue you are born 'male' but that doesn't fit your 'female' mind (the one that likes wearing high heels and being 'one of the girls' whatever that means)

I don't get it

Took off with whom? Who asked "cis" women whether they were happy to suddenly stop being called women and start being called "cis women"?

this ^

What other group of people are assigned a collective name, by someone else, and told they must accept it with no challenging?

It does hark back to the days of the n-word

"are you most comfortable saying you are a woman?"

Well yes, because lies make me uncomfortable.

Or did you mean something else? Like, womanhood does not depend on an objective reality and whoever thinks they are women are women?

How do you tell the difference between "pervert men" who claim to feel like women to gain access, and genuine transwomen?

Yup. Same old shit, different bucket.

another thread on trans issues that doesn't seem to be going anywhere and just leaves me feeling upset. We always seem to start with the intention of debating sensibly but it escalates quickly, probably because both trans people and 'cis' (a word I use but accept not everyone does) women have a lot to be angry about. I think I'm going to hide this thread, not because I don't want to continue discussing the issues, it just ends up upsetting me and there's more to life than MN! There's lots to be angry about in the world and I think we should look at how we can be allies to each other rather than pissing each other off.

Article by the excellent Rosie Redstockings on why Tara Hudson is the thin end of the wedge: wp.me/p6guL4-C

I'm still reeling over the disingenuous "I'd sincerely hope that a woman who had issues with penises wouldn't have to share a cell with a transwoman with a penis". If there's one thing history teaches, it's that sincere hopes are not enough - that's why we have a legal concept of human rights. If push comes to shove in an overstretched prison service then sincere hopes will count for nothing. But apparently women aren't allowed to have a human right not to share their personal space with individuals with penises, because apparently the individual with a penis' human right to be treated exactly like a woman in every single respect imaginable trumps any human rights the woman might have.

When DS was small I occasionally used to chat to another mother in theparkShe was a recrecovering heroin addict, former prostitute and had served time in prison for GBH . I have no doubt that to have been incarcerated with her when she was an angry teen with substance abuse and anger management problems would have been terrifying. But even then I still think it would be an order of magnitude worse if she'd been all these things and had a functioning penis.

So siani exactly what would count as strong enough proof? Because you seem to be defending articles of professed faith rather having a reasonable discussion.

And you say you would sincerely hope that someone with a specific issue with penises wouldn't have to share a cell with someone with a penis...you answered Cactus Annie's question about how many women had suffered sexual assault with a 50% US stat, so you acknowledge that it's something like a 50/50 chance (possibly more, if women who are in prison are more likely to have been assaulted at some point). Do you really think that your "sincere hopes" are an adequate safeguard or protection?

So, those 50% of women should have to declare that they have previously been abused in order to avoid that potentially traumatic situation? So there should be some sort of questionnaire or poll of inmates to see who doesn't mind sharing a cell with someone with a penis?