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!

P.S. If transsexual is an adjective and not a noun it would go like this:

You are transsexual. I am not transsexual.

Name change as too risky to identify myself.

Thanks for this interesting discussion.

Very pertinent for me as I'm attending a Women's conference today and the first motion is about trans women and people who self identify as women.
It makes me sad. Aren't there any other pressing issues that a women's conference could address?

If we have people who are transsexual, then there are also people who are....

Women.

Its a word invented for political reason to control and divide people.

Its meaning is disputed for this reason, because of how it shifts power away from women.

I refuse to use it because of its purpose and intent.

PumpkinSquash
Wtaf, I've heard it all now! So now we need a word to explain that we are what we actually are ffs

Same, I'm losing all sense of sanity reading this thread! grin
Least reading this thread has enlightened me to what the word non word cis is.Every day's a school day and all that.
Now if anyone in RL called me it I could know what they're on about and call them out on it by telling them to STFU and stop labelling me

I'd never heard of it until this thread.

I urge you to head over to the Feminism boards and read up on the GRA currently being forced through Parliament.

Its also a law that contains problems and danger for those who do not identify themselves along traditional gender lines.

Its about power and control of thought not freedom of expression. Its positively Orwellian in many respects.

Its about power and control of thought not freedom of expression. Its positively Orwellian in many respects

Absolutely.

The fact that one of the few exemptions in the act is to protect male inheritance for "real" men, whilst vulnerable women are afforded no protection from eg abusive partners tells us everything we need to know about the motivations and people behind the act.

I've never come across the word in real life. If I come across it online then I correct the word. I don't post on or use media where the term cis is in common use so it's not really an issue to me.

Who am I? I am not a cis woman. I am a human, an adult human female, a woman, defined as such by my biology. I accept and embrace reason, logic and science.

I do not conform to a gender stereotype and was raised both at home (despite my father) and by my school to break restrictive female stereotypes. I do not conform to a gender identity - I refuse to have a gender identity imposed on me. I cannot be cis gender and to assume I am and call me a cis woman because I am not trans, is offensive, and controlling.

My view is that there are many roles that humans can take on in life and society, and males and females, men and women should be free to take on any of those roles or combination of roles that they want to and dress however they want to, with some specific exceptions that respect the safety and dignity of others including the respect of biological sex for the protection of those that need it. When males stop committing sexual and power violence against women because of our sex and lack of relative physical strength, then the situation can be looked at again.

Accepting the existence of sexual biology and sexual biological differences is not the same as accepting gender or a gender role. Women are at risk because of our biology - in the main being less physically strong, and also by being able to be pregnant and give birth and the risk that poses to our health and because those physical states further reduce our physical strength.

Gender roles and the outward presentation throughout millennia over a range of cultures, have been in the main (there will always be some kind of rare exception) defined and controlled by men by dint of their superior physical strength for the maintenance of male power (and propensity for domination and tyranny, even over other men). The rule of logic and reason and science helps to elevate women nearer to a parity of power. Some people in power seek to stop this.

Just as I have felt that women were beginning to be taken seriously over the damaging nature of a persistent sexually charged, power culture of harrassment and assault, I do not want my status, labelling and sheer scientific definition to be (once again) redefined by a someone who is a (biological) man.

Men who pretend to be women give actual women the label ‘cis’ to try to validate their new identity.

I am not a cis woman and find the term offensive because it reinforces gender stereotypes to the detiriment of females and males.

There are so many eloquent and impeccably reasoned posts here on on here and other threads. Ironic one could say as for years women were said to be irrational and ruled by their feelings not by logic - oh, is seeeee, is that why men with to many 'feelz' have to become women? To maintain that stereotype? Yes, yes, I see... so also because there is little to no logic in trans arguments about gender/ sex (I feel, therefore I am), so of course this also means they must become women. Because the definition of woman is not biological, but actually a repository for all things undesirable; weak, irrational, 'unable to procreate without us'-rage, etc. Wow, mindbending.

As RedToothBrush says its Orwellian and all about power and control.

Men who pretend to be women give actual women the label ‘cis’ to try to validate their new identity.

See, that to me is just utter nonsense. Men wanting to be women, fair enough, by all means change into a woman. Each to their own etc.
What gives them the right to label biological women "cis" though? Call yourself what you like but it is actually pretty damn offensive to deny a whole sex the right to be a woman just because you've decided you want to be one.
If a man wants to be a woman anyway, why would he be re-naming the entire sex of the people he wants to be in the first place, therefore alienating himself from them?
You're a woman too, then, fine. So why not just say "woman" instead of further differing yourself?
It's madness.

Could we stop the use of this offensive word in its tracks by comparing the use of it with another word people wouldn't use, the N-word?

*I wonder if anyone ever posts on male dominated forums suggesting they should all be happy to be called 'cis'. You know, places like Pistonheads or ARSE. And if not, why not? Surely it applies to men too.

Just did a quick search of Pistonheads - the only mentions of cis I can find refer to the building industry. Funny that*

Sorry, the above was not my post and i was attempting to bold it. I was just interested to discover if @sagamartha has an opinion on this, and if she is attempting to alert men to the fact that they need to start calling themselves cis?

Yes, yes, I see... so also because there is little to no logic in trans arguments about gender/ sex (I feel, therefore I am), so of course this also means they must become women.

There is not supposed to be logic in the trans argument. Its about enlisting people to believe or not believe without critical thought and creating the narrative that you are either supportive or phobic. This is what makes it so powerful because it divides people by virtue. You are either a goodie or a baddie. If you disagree you are persecuting. Its about silencing voices both from the outside and the inside by creating a society in which you are not free to question or challenge the power of the leadership.

It is a political cult. That is what makes it dangerous. And difficult to tackle with logic as straw men suddenly pop up all over the place. Eg: Criticism of the methods of trans politics is the same as the fight against homophobia. If you are against homophobia you should support what we say.

Everything unplugmefromthematrix said. I wonder if it's, once again, just a question of male privilege and a sense of the traditionel male gender role entitlement to 'other' everyone else?

So someone who is not transsexual is a woman.
How does that work if a man answered that question?
Someone who is not transsexual is a man?

So logcally someone who is not transsexual is a man or a woman?

Or simply they are not transsexual? Should there be a word for someone who is not transexual? That word is not woman because there are men who are not transsexual as well.

Maybe a word isn't needed

Do you not have anything better to do OP. You're simply a bored individual who wanted to create a bit of a stick with feigned ignorace.

DFOD

The reason it is a priority for transactivists is because of the different interpretation of the word gender.

Feminists regard gender as sex role stereotypes imposed on women to their detriment.

Transactivists regards gender as an inner essence of their sense of whether they are men or women.

It is vital for transactivists to maintain that meaning of the word gender. To justify all their claims.

Although even trans pressure mostly subscribe to the idea that gender is society imposed expectations. Because there is no credible science to the contrary.

So being cisgendered either means that your internal sense of your sex is the same as the external anatomy.

Or it means that you agree to the sex role stereotypes imposed on you because of your anatomy.

I object to the word cis. I’m not prepared to be defined purely by something another person is not.

I’m not prepared to be defined in relation to a man self defining as a woman.

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

Women and cis women.

Of course, if every woman in the world suddenly adopted cis woman, they would come after that next.

Because the erasure of woman actually means is the goal.

And for the record, i don't use the word 'cis". Never have done and never will do. I know how people feel about it

And for the record, i don't use the word 'cis". Never have done and never will do. I know how people feel about it

Someone who is not transsexual is a man?

If they have a dick between their legs and XY chromosomes they are a man, yes, unless they are a woman (vagina, womb, XX chromosomes) or intersex.

“Or simply they are not transsexual? Should there be a word for someone who is not transexual? That word is not woman because there are men who are not transsexual as well.”

You sound confused. Or perhaps trying to confuse others?

Adult human males are Men. It says so in any dictionary.

Adult human females are Women. Again, as can be seen in any dictionary.

A male who wants to be female is a Transwoman, a male-to-female trans-sexual. Again, dictionary definition.

A female who wants to be male is a Transman, a female-to-male trans-sexual. As always, see dictionary.

So, you are a transwoman. We are women.

No need for any other words, or made-up offensive prefixes like “cis”.

If I take a VW, take the chassis out, and put a Porsche body on it, it does not become a Porsche. It becomes a Porsche copy with. To sell it as a Porsche would be illegal. It would break the trade descriptions act. It is not a Porsche. It is a VW which has had some work done on it and is made to look like a Porsche.

Under no circumstances - culturally or legally - would anybody make any sense in calling it a Porsche, or legally be allowed to refer to it as a Porsche. It doesn't matter how much its owner identifies it as a Porsche, thinks it's a Porsche, wants it to be a Porsche, it's not a Porsche.

Why on earth do men, with the XY chassis, and those with their XY exhaust pipes still intact, expect the world and the law to accept their own identification and be called something they are not, a woman?