To not really know what 'cis' means?

[BinarySearchTree]

I mean, of course I've looked it up, and I nod along whenever anyone describes me as cis.

But I don't really know what it means. I am a woman. I experience the world as a woman. I look like a woman and I am happy to be described as a woman. I could not be described as a tomboy. I support women's rights and equality.

But I wouldn't say I 'identify' with the female gender. I find it quite constraining and oppressive. But I would say I am a woman. Am I cis? Am I not? I don't understand!

Thinking about it more I suppose I would be fine with being described as a cissexual woman (if circumstances required it).
Because that is factual. I'm not trans sexual and I am a woman.
But cis woman? No. I have no gender identity, I'm just a woman.

If it was relevant to the conversation, I wouldn't have any issue with 'cissexual', though really I cannot think of any context where 'cissexual' would be needed.

The way 'cis' is actually used..assumes that everyone who is not a special snowflake is happy with the stereotypes associated with their sex. Gender identity is not something I understand to be quite honest as I do not understand how a male can feel like a woman or vice versa, anymore than a human can feel like a donkey. I do not have a gender identity at all, yet apparently its gender identity that tells you if you are a man or a woman. Does this mean, that me just 'feeling like myself' means I am neither man nor woman?

In short, cis is only ever used by transactivists and people who just blindly accept what transactivists say, and almost always in a negative way. Its just more made up nonsense, like transmisogyny. Its a way of shoving everyone into neat little boxes, whilst retaining being 'special' for yourself. Also usually a way of making out that women are privileged over men. And that males are the most oppressed of all. And you are cis-scum if you do not accept this, transphobic prick!

Gender is such crap. Abolishing it would help so many people to be more comfortable in themselves. But we are instead, making even more of an issue of it where until fairly recently it seemed to be bring broken down but by bit. Let toys be toys, for example. Great. A kids toy choice shouldn't matter at all. But now, in the past few years everything has gone totally backwards and not a boy playing with dolls instead of trucks means he is actually a girl, rather than a boy playing with what he wants to play with I don't think I will ever understand how this sexist stereotype rubbish is meant to be progressive. Its absolutely regressive.

And yes, transsexual and transgender are poles apart. Transsexuality is a genuine condition and people suffering with it deserve respect and understanding (and oddly enough, has nothing to do with 'gender' anyway, as its about sex not stereotypes). The other is just bollocks. Homophobic, misogynistic, narcissistic bollocks.

Donkey, a fuller description of Mystical Manipulation from the book can be found here:
www.culteducation.com/brainwashing19.html

I think what you are describing actually falls under 'The Sacred Science' category rather than 'Mystical Manipulation'.

I don't want to copy and paste the whole eight, but this is what he describes as Sacred Science:

The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute "scientific" precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also "unscientific." In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science.

The assumption here is not so much that man can be God, but rather that man's ideas can be God: that an absolute science of ideas (and implicitly, an absolute science of man) exists, or is at least very close to being attained; that this science can be combined with an equally absolute body of moral principles; and that the resulting doctrine is true for all men at all times. Although no ideology goes quite this far in overt statement, such assumptions are implicit in totalist practice.

At the level of the individual, the totalist sacred science can offer much comfort and security. Its appeal lies in its seeming unification of the mystical and the logical modes of experience (in psychoanalytic terms, of the primary and secondary thought processes). For within the framework of the sacred science, and sweeping, non-rational "insights." Since the distinction between the logical and the mystical is, to begin with, artificial and man-made, an opportunity for transcending it can create an extremely intense feeling of truth. But the posture of unquestioning faith - both rationally and non-rationally derived - is not easy to sustain, especially if one discovers that the world of experience is not nearly as absolute as the sacred science claims it to be.

Yet so strong a hold can the sacred science achieve over his mental processes that if one begins to feel himself attracted to ideas which either contradict or ignore it, he may become guilty and afraid. His quest for knowledge is consequently hampered, since in the name of science he is prevented from engaging in the receptive search for truth which characterizes the genuinely scientific approach. And his position is made more difficult by the absence, in a totalist environment, of any distinction between the sacred and the profane: there is no thought or action which cannot be related to the sacred science. To be sure, one can usually find areas of experience outside its immediate authority; but during periods of maximum totalist activity (like thought reform) any such areas are cut off, and there is virtually no escape from the milieu's ever-pressing edicts and demands. Whatever combination of continued adherence, inner resistance, or compromise co-existence the individual person adopts toward this blend of counterfeit science and back-door religion, it represents another continuous pressure toward personal closure, toward avoiding, rather than grappling with, the kinds of knowledge and experience necessary for genuine self-expression and for creative development.

In 'ultimate moral vision' Lifton refers to, in the case of TRAs, is not about god but more of a utopic vision. I think an example of this was demonstrated very well by Owen Jones in this tweet a few days ago:

Owen Jones@OwenJones84
Hi! I'm very passionate about taking on homelessness. For the same reason I oppose transphobia, because all injustice is wrong, and we don't solve any injustice by having Oppression Olympics. Glad to help!
All Injustice Is Wrong. (As it everyone else who doesn't agree with him to the letter is well up for a bit of oppression).

Its a utopic vision, which is very black and white and without nuisance or critical thinking (note the way that he dismisses this as 'Oppression Olympics' and almost suggests that there should be 'one true way forward' we should all be following without question if we believe in getting rid of injustice). The road to hell and all that jazz.

As you say, the 'sacred science' is stuff like born in the wrong body and the suicide argument / promotion.

C8H10N4O2, one of the wealthiest and most prominent transhumanists is a trans-identified male, Martin 'Martine' Rothblatt.

But I don't think the transhumanist appeal of transgenderism is confined to actual transhumanists. The desire to transcend our animal state is pretty much universal (and is based in fear of death, obviously) but also, if you look at the history of science, philosophy and religion, man's mastery over (female) nature is a constant theme, as is womb envy and men reversing the reality of the sexes, whereby men are said to 'give birth' to women (Eve being created from Adam's rib, Athena springing from the head of Zeus).

I realise this is total conspiracy theory territory.
Huge technology companies recognise that the next stage in technology development is going to be something along the lines of installing computer chips in brains. No-one in their right mind is going to consent to that though. How do you get society to disengage with their bodies and see them as something that can be adapted and redefined? What might the first step towards that look like?

But what I can’t understand, is everyone else.

Midwives, the women’s equality party, universities.

People who see and analyse sexism on a day-to-day basis. People who understand the importance of critical thought.

They seem to genuinely buy into it. Rather than jumping on it for nefarious reasons

Because TRAs is just part of a wider populist movement. The whole thing is sold as a package deal and vision of utopia. But because of it nature, to buy into the dream you have to believe in the vision wholesale or you don't really believe and are not a proper progressive.

This is the very thing I couldn't get my head around. I'm a unrepentant liberal (with a small l) and absolutely believe in getting rid of injustice as being essential and central to democracy, but my experience did not fit with this ideology and I felt guilty about doing so. I've found it very difficult to cope with at times.

The thing is I've known there was something wrong with it was being done, and haven't quite been able to put my finger on why until recently and only when I've put it into the context of wider politics - precisely because its not about the trans agenda in the way the whole dream is sold. It our way or the highway. You are either with us or against us.

Its the fact its not liberal and progressive despite professing to be. Its illiberal and authoritarian, but not everyone is aware of it or questioning this dynamic because it has part of a subtle creep as politics has polarised to the left and right. I think the way its framed it very much looks like its progressive because it gets deliberately tied to other ideas - like the fight against homophobia. You are against homophobia therefore you are against 'transphobia' too, because its 'the same thing'. (Deliberately tying one idea to another is a propaganda technique).

I think the problem a lot of people fighting against TRAs have had, is because they are looking at it as a single issue unconnected to something bigger. It takes on a different light when you come at it from this slightly different angle.

Perhaps feminists have had too much tunnel vision in seeing women's rights too much in isolation and have been blindsided as a result? Just a thought.

Don't hear about cis men very often do we? Strange that (not).

Because most men on being instructed to label themselves as cis would simply say "fuck off and do one sunshine", which should be any sensible woman's response as well.

The TAs' idea that women should be identifying themselves as cis merely serves to underline that TAs are men who come hard-wired with the ultimate male attribute - entitlement.

Oh, and it would help enormously if all us female cross out the word gender wherever we see it on a form and replace it with the correct descriptor i.e. sex.

Huge technology companies recognise that the next stage in technology development is going to be something along the lines of installing computer chips in brains. No-one in their right mind is going to consent to that though. How do you get society to disengage with their bodies and see them as something that can be adapted and redefined? What might the first step towards that look like? No-one in their right mind is going to consent to that though.

Yes they are. Its dead easy.

If you are told you would be 30% cleverer and you would gain 'super human status' as a result. Especially if you were competitive natured with a sense of social duty and it was sold as 'advancing the human race' and being a 'pioneer of a brave new world of progression'.

The power of propaganda is brilliant isn't it?

Because most men on being instructed to label themselves as cis would simply say "fuck off and do one sunshine", which should be any sensible woman's response as well.

Yeah, that was basically my response as a woman finding out I'm "cis" earlier word for word!

I'd preface it with a 'bollocks to that!'

Thanks red, yes, Sacred Science does seem to fit the wrong body stuff, as well as the fact that trans activists have managed to get psychiatry to throw out one of the guiding principles of medical practice, differential diagnosis, and replace it with 'affirmation', for transgenderism, and transgenderism alone (which is also somehow simultaneously not a medical condition at all, but nevertheless requires funding for extreme medical interventions).

In 'ultimate moral vision' Lifton refers to, in the case of TRAs, is not about god but more of a utopic vision.

I think this is a big part of the appeal of trans to the far left, which has always been utopian, wanting to create the perfect human society free of injustice. Utopianism is one of the most frightening political impulses, because it inevitably leads to totalitarianism, as human nature of course is not perfectible, so when utopians get into power, they find themselves having to suppress or eliminate all the problematic people who are ruining their vision of a perfect society. Left utopian movements killed millions in the 20th century: Stalin's gulags; the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero; Mao's Great Leap Forward.

Ah, the cis bollocks thing.

I just go with "I actively choose not to adhere to such archaic preconceived labelling of individuals based on how others deem them as presenting, as is my moral duty within an equal and accepting society. This is the 21st Century, you know."

And then watch as their heads explode

I like that cat. Not sure I'd remember it all though. I've told both 'cis' and 'identify' people that I object to the terms/ideology because I'm a gender critical feminist. Interestingly I've found that in general men respond with more of an 'oh OK then (strong feeling might get feisty back away)' kind of vibe where women tend to give me more of a 'uh-oh (possible unenlightened bigot alert back away).

I'd not have such an issue with 'cissexual' applied to people who aren't transsexual, although as very small numbers of people are transsexual I can't really see why the term is needed. Plus the vast majority of the pushing seems to be from men who very obviously aren't women and whose 'transness' seems limited to lipstick and perhaps a dress/skirt and long hair (none of which I have, so maybe I'm actually more trans than they are).

Men back away because the language excludes them. No one says cis man because that would involve them in the debate and make them interested and have a stake in it.

As others have said they are more likely to forcefully and successfully establish its a complete load of bollocks.

Flowerpot1234 - have you come across Alex Drummond, the transwoman who kept the beard. She claims to be "broadening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman".

Why the fuck doesn't Alex just "broaden the bandwidth" of what it means to be a man????????

Because then Alex would just be another man and wouldn't be special and have a voice (and the power that goes with that).

Perhaps feminists have had too much tunnel vision in seeing women's rights too much in isolation and have been blindsided as a result? Just a thought.

That’s possibly right. Although they are now exploring the wider issue.

Interestingly, a lot of below the line comments on MSM say things like I’m sick to death of the stuff, stop shoving it down our throats. Which sounds to me like a healthy rejection of authoritarianism?

Particularly as there are now very real attempts to dispense with the trans prefix whilst maintaining the cis prefix.

Women and cis women.

I see this a lot on social media. Males are women, and females are 'cis women'. Its so stupid. But again, protesting to this makes you transphobic. As does even a little tiny bit of critical thinking on this topic. I have actually lost a few friends over this topic in the past few months. My sister is a lesbian and as such bore the brunt of all of this before most even knew the fight was going on. We never thought it would go 'mainstream' so fast though, nor that so many apparently intelligent people would be taken in by the nonsense in the way that they seem to be. The last friend I lost over this actually tried to assault me over the difference in opinion. Long story short, lesbians being called transphobic for refusing to shag people with dicks. me and my sister kind of hit the roof and asked how such homophobia was seen as fine by some people. Got a bit heated. Friend called me a 'dailymail reading utter bigot' (lifelong lefty here) and went to slap me round the face For saying that lesbians are females attracted to females ffs. Alcohol was involved, but that still doesn't excuse the violence, or the utter stupidity of thinking males can be lesbians and lesbians owe these males sex.

It is utter rubbish and only used by the tiny minority of people who are determined to make transgender a national issue and stuff it into everyone’s life. Born a woman, born a man. Live as what you like but you are what you were born as.

Datun, TRAs getting air time is all part of the same climate in which Nigel Farage got shit loads of publicity and influence from being controversial and extreme and the press lapped it up 'because clicks'.

Likewise extremist Muslims have been given platforms by the press 'in a bid to understand' terrorism and that has distorted perceptions (and its really about generating a revenue from sensationalism).

Across the board moderate voices are drowned out by the extremes. They are not getting a platform to make a more moderate case.

As for a rejection of authoritarianism, I see no sign of that. There are plenty of people who are buying in to it. Its about different media and different audiences and often peer pressure.

Owen Jones certainly is getting lots of thumbs up for what he's saying. Corbynites have already had a big thing about how the traditional press can not be trusted and is biased and that isn't diminishing.

The last friend I lost over this actually tried to assault me over the difference in opinion.

Bloody hell TheGoalIsToStayOutOfTheHole. That’s unbelievable.

I wonder if it’s because nailing your flag to the trans mast is such a virtue signalling, progressive, right on thing to do, that when you point out it that actually undermines homosexuality, the realisation is too difficult to process.

The fact that in the name of progression and LGBT rights you’re actually erasing LGB people’s legitimacy. Hard fought for legitimacy. Anchored to, (until recently), exceptionally right on credentials.

It must be a bit of a mindfuck.

RedToothBrush

Where is the Achilles heel in all this? Where do you see the weakest gazelle?

How do we take it down?

So transsexuals don't belong to the man or woman group?

It's up to transsexuals to come up with a descriptor to differentiate themselves, not to force one on those who are still the sex they were born.

Oh, wait, we have those already: transman and transwoman.

DonkeySkin

Interesting - Rothblatt isn't one I've followed as legal rather than tech industry (those I have followed I know as tech first, transhumanists second).

There are some vociferous TRAs in the tech industry - its a very male, white culture. I'd not noticed a significant overlap/relationship with the tech transhumanists and it would be at odds with some parts of the transhumanist community. I shall go and look again though.

Do you know, I honestly don't give a toss if I am called transphobic. It's not a big deal. It's simply a few letters strung together by a group of people who think it is the height of intelligence to screech NoDebate when challenged.

I suspect it's because I'm old by MN standards and 'phobic' never really figured on my radar back in the day. I think it's a term that rattles younger people (by younger I mean under 55 or so).

Perhaps it's time we treat the term 'phobic' with the same derision we treat 'cis' i.e. as bollocks.