to think Mumsnet should delete posts in which women are called cis

[violetsarentblue]

I (and I imagine quite a lot of women on here) are fed up with being referred to as cis. I find the term deeply insulting.
I'm a woman and prefer to be addressed as a 'woman', not a cis woman.

I noticed MN are quick to delete posts where transgender people are called 'he' instead of 'she', because that group of people find the term insulting and MN don't want to offend.

Generally we delete posts in which people persistently refuse to refer to people by the pronoun (he/she; him/her) by which they’ve asked to be referred, out of respect for that individual’s wishes.

Please - could we have the same depth of consideration for our wishes?

Thank you.

Well I think that is the point of these many discussions a woman is female born adult a trans woman is a male born adult

There is no changing that fact

Everyone knows what is meant by using the word woman only some object to this but they know what it means

That's rather the point isshoes. Trans women aren't women. Why on earth should anyone believe that they are?

Samcro he hasn't done anything 'disablist' but that's an argument for another thread.

Alvis - how you have decided that 'cis' is more offensive than 'straight' is beyond me. Could it just be that 'straight' has been used as a synonym for heterosexual for a long enough that you are used to it? And also I would dispute your argument about woman being a biological descriptor. Language evolves. Whatever it says in your Oxford English Dictionary will change and no one has the right to claim ownership over a gender. Venus - I'm assuming that you are being sarcastic. Or are you really that offensive?

You quote RG and then accuse Venus of being offensive??
How would you argue that woman is not a 'biological descriptor' ? I mean in real empirical facts rather than a wooly 'language evolves' way. When language hasn't evolved and there is no indicadion that it will evolve to a point that the general public will call themselves cis-women on a daily basics?
Gender is a social construct - until trans and trans supporters get this they will be ogffenfded for ever and a day.

'just because you're offended, it doesn't mean you are right'

But being right does mean you are right. Sometimes words just mean the things that they mean and woman means woman, not 'anyone who identifies as a woman'.

no one has the right to claim ownership over a gender

But they do have the right to describe their own biology without someone else coming along, sticking a qualifier on it and taking the primary descriptor for themselves.

Transwomen are women and women are cis women - erm, no Transwomen are transwomen and women are women.

yes that's exactly what I did. Quoted Ricky gervais and said Venus was being offensive. And I stand by it. Was my quotation in any way offensive to you?

'Trans supporter' - wow. What's the opposite of that dragon?

Language does evolve. I don't care if you consider that a woolly notion. Remember a time in the 80s when 'bad' meant 'good'? And now it means 'bad' again. It can evolve that quickly.

Gender is indeed a social construct - not an absolute. The assumption that people who are born physically female are the only people who can use the term 'women' is the precise reason that terms like 'cis' exist. And no I don't think we will be calling ourselves 'cis-women' on a daily basis. But if we want to distinguish ourselves from
transgendered women, why shouldn't we have a term for it?

As I trans man (don't ask why I'm on here) I must say that people won't mean it as an insult, but it is however very unnecessary to use even if the thread as about trans type things. I can't imagine why anyone would feel the need to add it

Caspar, it is sometimes used as an insult - "die cis scum" etc.

But actually many words can be used as an insult - especially those used to describe people. The word 'woman' can be used as an insult.

Cis is not a neutral term, isshoes. It's loaded. It's a construct used solely to talk about ridiculous concepts such as cis-privilege and cis-sexism. To pretend that women are in some way oppressing trans women. It's also meaningless, as people here have explained in detail how it doesn't actually apply to them personally, yet here you are, using it as a blanket category for all non trans people.

It depends on how it's used Venus. 'Gay' can be used as an insult or as a neutral term too.

I'm not using it as a blanket term for anyone. As I said earlier, if someone uses the term for you and it's not correct, say so. But it's not meaningless. I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who were born female and identify as a woman. For people in that category, cisgender means just that and nothing more. They don't have to use the term, but it doesn't have to be an insult.

Heterosexual people are actively attracted to the opposite sex whilst homosexual people are actively attracted to the same sex.

Trans people have an active feeling that their gender is different to their biological sex; by your analogy, therefore, cis people have an Active feeling their gender is the same as their sex. But that is not how cis is being used; it is being used to mean not-trans, whereas many people who are not-trans do not have a gender identity. Agender would be more accurate.

People are using woman to mean its dictionary definition of "person with the body of an adult human female" - this definition requires no knowledge of that person's position on gender. Many species have a biological descriptor that's nothing to do with gender (cock/hen etc).

They just are women. They don't have to "identify" as women. It really is meaningless.

Isshoes, there is a big assumption that the correct default descriptor is cis if it is known that the person is not trans.

We are arguing that the correct descriptor is the word that means adult human male/female ie man/woman as that makes no presumption about someone's internal position,

YY OneMore.

But if we want to distinguish ourselves from
transgendered women, why shouldn't we have a term for it?

Because there is already a perfectly good term for it already, woman, anyone who identifies as a woman but has male biology is a transwoman .
In everyday speak I'm happy to refer to a transgender person in their preferred identity. But that does not change the fact of their biology. So if in discussion on the subject, to Differentiate between the two.... plain old woman and transwoman do that job fine.

This maybe a crap analogy but I'm New to these sort of arguments, so bear with me.

the word Champagne is often used to describe a bottle of sparkling wine, but it isn't though is it, unless it came from the champagne region france. people who sell or spend alot of time drinking champagne or expensive sparking wine refer to each correctly.
They don't refer to champagne as "the Genuine champagne" or abbreviate it to "genchampagne" because it doesn't need a new name, champagne is champagne.

But as a lay person, I can still invite people to a party and say they'll be champagne. When in fact I've bought other expensive sparkling wine. No one will be bothered, (well maybe wine snob)

isshoes

Or can women not be a term for everyone who identifies as a woman, and in the context of discussing transgender issues, the term 'cisgender women' be used to denote people who do not consider themselves transsexual?

I (personally) have no problem with changing the definition of woman to include transwomen. I do have a problem though when certain transactivists, having secured that change in definition, then go on to say that e.g. reproductive issues are not women's issues and that therefore it's transphobic for the women's movement to focus on them. And that does happen.

And the problem with "cisgender" is that it's a term for one group of people, invented by another group of people, which is always problematic. And further, the people who invented that term are largely born male, and the people described by it are largely born female (as these discussions always seem to occur between transwomen and other women). A course of surgery and some hormones notwithstanding, it's never cool when members of a dominant group seek to define members of an oppressed group.

The other problem with cisgender is its meaning - dictionary definitions point to something like "an unproblematic relationship between one's sex and one's gender" or "a feeling of gender fitting with sex". But within the group of women who are not trans, there are plenty of women who feel that is an inaccurate description of them. For example many feminists believe that as gender is entirely a social construct designed to uphold the patriarchy, describing someone as cis is basically the same as saying they love their chains. And then there are plenty of women like me who have lots of stereotypically masculine traits but identify as women, not transgender. Cis is a really bad description of what I am. Trans is too.

If someone calls you cisgender and you're not, perhaps just say 'actually I'm not cisgender'. And the world will move on.

I guess it is the same as if someone mixes up (say) transgender, transsexual, or transvestite. If it's done in ignorance, you correct, you move on. If someone does it to be deliberately obtuse or to show they have no respect for the way you choose to describe yourself, if they do it dismissively, if they do it to show they don't care, then that's offensive. If you want to describe someone's relationship with gender, and you're not sure what it is, why not ask?

The whole concept of gender is socialised sexist crap anyway.

If society could just manage to ditch the concepts of masculine and feminine so that men called Jenny and Sheila in dresses and makeup were an everyday thing, maybe TW would feel less need to crowd in on our spaces and our identity.

'Maybe TW would feel less need to crowd in on our spaces and our identity'. Again I think this is the issue. Why does it have to be 'this is our space and that is yours?'.

Twat - your analogy is quite good when used to describe my point actually. You're right, most people don't give a fig whether you are drinking real champagne or other sparkly wines, so you usually don't need to specify whether it is actual champagne or not. But if you were having a discussion about different types of drinks that fall under that category, you might wish to have a term that denotes 'genuine' champagne and a term that denotes other drinks that in all but a few subtle ways are also considered champagne. That is when I would argue that a term can be used that distinguishes the two categories, because all of those drinks are referred to as champagne on a daily basis, and that's fine.

isshoes But you miss the point, yes people are happy to use champagne as and over all word. But once you start to talk about the merits, buying and selling rights, advertising etc. All products are referred to correctly. Champagne is not then referred to as "genchampagne"
As it is taken that if you are discussing these different products, then you already know what champagne means and what the others are. If you did label some other sparkling wine champagne and tried to sell it as such, you'd end up in hot water.

if we do accept the description cis women, what is thwe term to describe people who have wombs and can have babies, as it is now a subset of women and men?

and medically this is very important.

Because at times I do want to share some spaces with women

A trans woman is not a women has not lived the life if a female and will not be able to relate to me in the same way as other women can

I don't feel this should have to be compromised in anyway. I would not demand that trans women who want to have a space for only trans women they allow women (female born adults) to be included I respect the fact that they face issues I do not and need a space that they feel is just for them so why can I not have that in return?

Alvis - how you have decided that 'cis' is more offensive than 'straight' is beyond me. Could it just be that 'straight' has been used as a synonym for heterosexual for a long enough that you are used to it?

"Straight" is slang for "heterosexual", which is, broadly speaking, the sexuality I identify as having. The vocabulary to express sexuality is broad and descriptive (homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual), although one could still argue that it doesn't possess sufficient nuance to demonstrate the full spectrum (if spectrum is even the right way to think about it) of people's experience of sexuality.

Cisgender is a prescriptive term. Yes, as you say, it is generally used to express 'the opposite of transgender'. But why does transgender need to have an opposite? I am not transgender but that does not mean I am the opposite of transgender.

This article has a very interesting quote about what 'cisgender' does on an ideological level:

"[cisgender] tells us that we all experience some kind of relationship between our bodies and our selves, whatever that relationship may be."

As a woman and a feminist, I reject the implication that relationship I have between my body, my 'self', and my gender, is the opposite of being transgender. I am female and I have no problem with being identified as a 'she'. But I do not think my gender is something I identify with: it is something imposed upon me. My perception of self and gender is not included within the (simplistic) dichotomy of cisgender and transgender. (Nor am I genderqueer). The vocabulary available for sexuality is not the same.

Also, yes, language evolves. But it doesn't do that on its own, nor is its evolution something which does not sometimes possess political or ideological meaning. Language doesn't have an agency of its own whereby it evolves according to logical, sensible rules. People use it and improve it and warp it and that has power for good and bad. So, yes, lots of women object to this potential 'evolution' for the word 'woman', because it implies a perception of gender that is inherently anti-feminist and, if it became generally accepted, basically destroys the language with which we fight for an improvement in women's rights (which is rooted in an idea that gender expectations are an imposition based on sex).