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.

Terms for sexuality also have a meaning that can be observed by others. A woman might call herself straight but if she is married to a woman, she's clearly not straight. She wouldn't then go around asking people to validate her straight identity. That would make no sense.

Just because it is try that language evolves doesn't mean that words have no meaning. I have previously asked TAs what is the word for that group of people with female bodies and was told there is no need for such a word. How the fuck is this feminism when we can't even name women?

This is, hands down, the most ridiculous thread I have ever read on mumsnet.

"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."

Brilliant.

A man who has had a vagina for all of 5 minutes doesn't get to define me. I define me. I'm a women. I refuse to acknowledge this CIS nonsense.

alltouchedout - WELL SAID!

Oh no, some one has called us ridiculous , we must all be wrong then

< bursts into tears >

A man who has had a vagina for all of 5 minutes doesn't get to define me. I define me. I'm a women.

I wouldn't even call a neovag a vagina. It is basically a surgically created hole, which grows shut if not penetrated regularly.

A vagina ... well, I need not tell anyone on mumsnet what a vagina is and does.

isshoes

Language does indeed involve but I find it hard to imagine a day when the Oxford Dictionaries definition of woman is "adult human female or male".

Nobody owns gender, but I certainly think that women (those born with the correct anatomy and chromosomes) can claim ownership of their female sex.

*evolve

And I don't want to own gender. Gender is a societal construct used to shackle people. If trans people want that, they can have it. But not at any women's expense.

"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."

Of course it does. If you accept transwomen as women then you should also accept that a female biology is not a necessary part of being a woman, so FGM, childbirth, breastfeeding, child brides, honor killings & insistence on virginity at marriage etc are not women's issues. The logic is sound.

That is what happens when you accept a false premise just to be nice. Fucking reduction to absurdity.

Cersei and vestal - that's just blatant transphobia. The rest is a discussion around semantics. But there is absolutely no need to be so vitriolic.

I would also like clarification isshoes.

A vagina is this part of human anatomy that leads to other inner organs, and where menstruation blood comes out of.

I might refer to an intersex person's natural genitals as vagina (even if it has a dead end, which I think is possible) because there's no other word for it, and it stays open without meddling, but a neovag is a neovag.

I'm not the one who brought the term "front hole" into the discussion.

Please see below the requested clarification:

Because a lot of the negative feeling on here appears to be aimed at transwomen, I am going to give the example of a transman.

If I were a transman, and had felt a man my whole life, and had waited and waited until the day I was able to have genital surgery to look like the man I felt I was, only to come on here and read the following comments:

'A woman who has had a dick for all of five minutes doesn't get to define me...'

'I wouldn't even call it a dick...'

I imagine I would feel pretty hurt. Probably not surprised, because society still hasn't really accepted transgenderism. But I certainly wouldn't feel welcome. That said, I thought cersei's comment more insulting than vestals. I'm guessing the fact that i wasn't asked to explain how the former was offensive means that I wasn't the only one who though it so.

You got two requests for clarification, one specific for vestal and one general for both.

Virtuay every post on this thread has said the same as Cersei

I do agree with isshoes that those posts struck a bad note.

And you really think a forum of born-male posters would accept that a trans man got to redefine them as cis men and object about prostate cancer discussions being cis sexist?

Yes, I imagine the above language is hurtful to trans individuals; a poster has experienced her relative's FGM being minimised with respect to trans issues and that was extremely hurtful for her

Taking vaginas out of it... A man who believes himself to be a woman doesn't get to define me.

I'm not transphobic btw. At all. People are free to do what they want. As long as it doesn't affect me, it's all good.

And you really think a forum of born-male posters would accept that a trans man got to redefine them as cis men and object about prostate cancer discussions being cis sexist?

Good joke. Since when do men care whether they hurt women's feelings? In most male dominated spaces, you'd be lucky if they aren't openly misogynist.