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!

Quentin That's fair, but why should they be forced to ID as Lesbian or Gay in order to be included, asexuality is important to people. The same way bisexuality is important, you wouldn't force a bisexual to just fit in to the L or G or be excluded.

The community doesn't exist solely to shelter people from, and campaign against, homophobia even though that is an important part. It's also about meeting other people with shared experiences, and finding support and companionship with people who see the world like you do. I am asexual, I am romantically attracted to women, I'm not homosexual and so my experiences would be different from those of a lesbian.

I just struggle to see why it's fine for bisexuals to be in the community, and have their own letter, but not for asexuals. The 'issues' would be the same. (I of course don't have a problem with bisexuals being in the community, they are an important part of it. I just don't get the logic of excluding asexuals).

But that's homophobia. They are already covered by LGBT by virtue of being in a same sex relationship

I agree. I'm asexual and don't believe that asexuality needs to be included with LGB. People aren't discriminated against for not having sex. It's slightly irritating that there's very little media representation of people who are asexual and happy/not 'cured' of it by the end of the show. But that's not remotely comparable to the oppression people in same-sex relationships have faced historically, and continue to face in many parts of the world.

"then we welcome bisexuals in different sex/gender relationships in the community because their current relationship doesn't define their bisexuality"

In theory perhaps, though I have a lot of experience of the opposite

Sorry, that's even further off topic!

Beyond Yeh, that should probably be a 'this should happen' thing, because it absolutely should. You're still bi if you're dating/married to someone of a different sex/gender to your own. Heck, if you've only ever been in relationships with someone of a different sex/gender to you're own you can still be bi. It's sad if people are being excluded, although I've yet to see it happen IRL (then again I haven't seen Asexual people be excluded IRL either, which is nice)

Beyond yes it is! I may start my own thread :)

For many people, if they were to refer to Jane from Accounts as "a trans" they would be subject to disciplinary at work.

Well, this is society specific. In the UK we would never talk about "Blacks", as in "the Blacks would argue that....", but I've lived in places where it is deemed acceptable to do just that (or "the Whites")

It feels rude to me, but that's my socialisation and upbringing rather than some hard and fast rule

I just struggle to see why it's fine for bisexuals to be in the community, and have their own letter, but not for asexuals.

Assexual makes a lot more sense than tagging the T onto LGB, to be fair. T has absolutely nothing at all to do with sexuality, and infact the ideology itself says that any sexuality is bigoted and transphobic as sex is irrelevant and 'gender identity' is whats important and to say otherwise is wrong

The community doesn't exist solely to shelter people from, and campaign against, homophobia even though that is an important part. It's also about meeting other people with shared experiences, and finding support and companionship with people who see the world like you do. I am asexual, I am romantically attracted to women, I'm not homosexual and so my experiences would be different from those of a lesbian.

But banding together against discrimination is a big part of it, loopsdefruit. I don't have a lot in common with many gay men apart from I haven't been able to walk down the street holding hands with some of my partners.

And as for finding things in common - the thing you have in common with lesbians, even if you don't identify as a lesbian, is a romantic attraction to other women. That's your entry point into the LGB community. You not having sex is not the thing you have in common. If you want to band together with other women romantically attracted to women who don't have sex, then knock yourself out, it still comes under the LGB umbrella. But if you want a community group of women who just don't have sex, and some of those women aren't romantically interested in other women, ever, then that's not an LGB group at all. That's just a group of asexuals, which is fine.

As for bisexuals: I am bi whatever the sex of the person I am involved with. But if I am involved with a man, it is not a queer relationship, even if he is bi or queer or whatever too. It's a straight relationship, and while I would feel entirely content still taking part in community life, etc, I would still have to acknowledge that in this relationship I was benefiting from straight privilege. I would also consider it a bit of a dick move if I went on marches, etc, with a male partner and was all PDA all over them, as that's just not the place for flaunting straight privilege. (I don't think I'd go with a male partner to a pride march, even if he was bi too. I think I'd go with my women friends and let him go with his friends. Although it's never come up in real life.) Most bisexuals are in relationships with people of the opposite sex, btw.

In organic chemistry cis means the functional groups are on the same side of a carbon chain in an isomer. Trans are on opposing sides.
Hmmm.

CM - TF
|........ |
TM - CF

The problem I have with ‘cis’ (and hence ‘trans’) is that even if you accept the concept of social gender mapping on to sexed bodies, is that it suggests that it is politically neutral and the cis-trans matrix forms a perfect sided square. It doesn’t. It would form a very acute angled skewed rhombus, with women, deemed de facto to be ‘cis’, at the bottom and ‘cis’ men at the pinnacle.

From the outset, gender and sex are deemed to have equal value, but that’s not the case, as gender is a secondary phenomenon that is a response to the primary existence of sexually dimorphic individuals and how the reproductive load is asymmetrically shared between the sexes. Gender is a mechanism to control the reproductive process, from kings and emperors to capitalist industrialists… more productive humans are always required for their imperialist endeavours. So from a materialist historical perspective, women are considered chattels and controlled to enable population expansion. Such analysis is impossible if you look at gender in isolation from sex. Women have their gender imposed on them because of their biology. The mere existence of gender undermines women’s personal sovereignty. Destroying gender will give autonomy to women of their bodies and reproductive choices.

I also refute that such a simplistic concept from isomeric chemistry can be mapped onto human social relations and power dynamics between the sexes. I hate the cis-trans thing because it is apolitical. It erases the ability to describe the oppression of one class (f) at the hands of the other class (m) based on sex, because members of the latter class are spuriously identifying as the former; the reasons behind that oppression are disregarded or considered unimportant… due to male privilege. Female oppression really is invisible to males, even the good guys. I saw one bloke on twitter explaining that such things as abortion bans, menstrual shame and the slew of metoo hashtags was “self-pitying” Genderism is antithetical to feminism. Feminism says that gender norms should be abolished, yet the cis-trans model of gender identity upholds and reifies gender stereotypical boxes. It is impossible to name female-exclusive problems in such a quadrant. It utilises the secondary axis of oppression - gender - as a bona fide and edifying identity in its own right. To use an oppressive construct as an identity is offensive and has the hallmarks of supremacist behaviour.

Fuck off with your cis. I am simply a woman, I do not need an isomeric modifier as I am not an isomer. The intrinsic nature of sexual dimorphism to sexual politics means that identifying across genders will always be assymetrically skewed to the disadvantage of born women.

I do not understand the theoretical aspects of the discussion.

But if I am described I'll ask to be called something I choose.

Well I learned a new word today lol

I wasn’t assigned a sex at birth. I had a vagina therefore I am female. End of.
Assigning means giving someone a role - no-one ‘gave’ me my biological sex!!! For the tiny minority of people who are born with ambiguous genetalia then I can see how the term ‘assigned’ can be relevant.,

So basically, being trans is now a protected characteristic and you can be arrested or at least disciplined for referring to a trans person as such. Even if they are. Because actually they’re not, they’re just a woman (or man).

But if I, a woman, objects to being called a cis woman, that’s too bad. Because I don’t get a say, I have to accept a trans woman is a woman and can talk about me and my experiences and life but it doesn’t go the other way, a woman is not a trans woman it is bigotry of be highest order to comment.

Hypothetically, for my previous comment.

So basically, being trans is now a protected characteristic and you can be arrested or at least disciplined for referring to a trans person as such.

And that's only one "trans".

I'm desperately hoping that a "transracial" person will start a legal action to establish their "rights" soon.

BahHumbygge excellent post. I did not understand it all bit what I did understand, was fab.

I'm curious to ask, so only reply of you do not mind answering questions born out of curiosity..

How do asexual people feel discriminated against?

Do bisexual people in a monotonous relationship with a person of the opposite sex feel discriminated against?

Do bisexual people in a monotonous relationship with a person of the opposite sex feel discriminated against?

Being in a monotonous relationship is bad enough without being discriminated against too

Wtaf? Does this shit exist outside mumsnet?

Yes of course Iwant. Hence so many women being so pissed off.

Betty185 By a monogamous relationship I meant where the only current relationship would be with someone of the opposite sex. So to the outside world that relationship would look like a heterosexual relationship. I could have worded that better, I could have said, a bisexual person who only goes out with people of the opposite sex.....

Iwanttobe8stoneagain "Does this shit exist outside mumsnet?" You are going to need to be a bit more explicit which shit it is you mean?

Italiangreyhound Look again at what you (or your predictive text) wrote the first time.

Monogamous! I mean! I am dyslexic but I think it was predicative text! Apologies!