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!

I would happily describe myself as a transwoman. Or say i am trans. No issues with that. I also don't use the word cis.

I was just wondering if a word is needed for people who don't belong to the group called transsexuals?

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?

Yes. It is an attempt by men to displace women from the subject position within our own category of being.

Further, 'cis' deliberately obscures the reality of sexism, not just by claiming that females are privileged over males on the axis of gender, but by imposing a libertarian framework on what is actually a material system of power. Women and girls - that is, female people - have never had the option of 'identifying' as women or not. Historically and throughout the world today, women have never had a choice in the matter of whether society sees as us women, and treats us accordingly.

Is a girl who is married off at the age of 10, raped every night by a man 40 years older than her, then beaten when she tries to escape, 'cis'? Does she identify with what her society tells her a woman is, and what a woman is for? Can she escape her situation by not identifying as 'cis', but as something other than a girl, someone who would prefer to be treated as a human being?

Being a woman is an embodied reality, and as such, it is not a state that can be opted in or out of. It is like being black, or being disabled. Nothing about your feelings or behaviour can change how society treats you based on your embodied reality.

Imagine if trans-disabled people (they do exist) labelled disabled people 'cis disabled' and claimed they held privilege over them because they were treated as actually disabled by society. This would be seen as outrageous and offensive. But when men pull the same reversal on women, it's seen as ultra progressive and we are bitches for not submitting to it

sagamartha
I was just wondering if a word is needed for people who don't belong to the group called transsexuals?

Well, we have the terms man and woman. Does it make language easier, does it improve society, does it make communication better, does it avoid confusion, does it clarify anything at all to make up another word?

I genuinely think the world has been doing just fine for several thousand years with 'man' and 'woman' and doesn't need any other peculiar word.

I don't care if any man wants to call himself cis.

I am sad when any woman calls herself cis, as I very much doubt she is (I don't know any women whose birth sex completely aligns with the gender expectations put on women), but it's up to her.

I get extremely annoyed whenever anyone either describes me as cis, or describes a group of women in general as cis, without knowing if those individual women describe themselves like that. It makes a nonsense of all this "respect people's identity! don't coercively assign labels to them!" bullshit.

To add insult to injury, any woman who rejects the cis label is now also automatically labelled a TERF and a bigot and told to go die in a fire. So much for the right to self-identify.

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

Women and cis women.

datun, please tell me this isn’t really happening.

Speaking of that Annie, I don't know any trans person who 100% aligns with the expected gender stereotype either. Not just the famous examples like Beardy Alex or Dan Muscato, but think of just regular transwomen who work in science or are in the army. Or wear jeans!

Trans (in my head) can only realistically refer to transsexual - someone with body dysmorphia - regardless or what they wear or how they act.

Does that make sense?

SuburbanRhonda

It definitely is.

I see more and more confusing conversations where women are talking about women and their rights and transwomen are in complete agreement. It’s only as the conversation develops that you realise they are simply not acknowledging that they’re not natal women. So they are in complete agreement with women, on the assumption that those women are actually talking about them, too. It’s a deliberate tactic though.

“Oh, yes I completely agree that women need exclusive spaces. Of course we do. It’s only common sense that we should be segregated from men”. And all the while is a transwoman talking.

If it gets onto anything specifically biological, the words cis woman will be used.

Oh, yes I completely agree that women need exclusive spaces. Of course we do

If I was having that conversation with a transwoman, I’m afraid that’s where I would seriously lose my shit.

Yes. It is an attempt by men to displace women from the subject position within our own category of being.

Great description. Perfect way to frame it. That's exactly what it is.

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.

Absolutely Datun.

And the fact is that the word 'woman' CANNOT be separated from adult human females, and if it were, it would no longer have any value for trans-identified males.

Trans male theorist Julia Serano has said that women have trouble accepting the word 'cis' because female people don't want to admit that we aren't the sole reference point for what 'woman' means. But this is nonsense, of course.

The very reason for the existence of the words 'woman' and 'man' is to distinguish adult human females from adult human males. 'Woman' derives the entirety of its cultural meaning from the existence and history of adult human females, and if all the adult human females in the world were to stop using that word to describe ourselves - if we decided to call ourselves, say, snarfelblarts instead - then the word 'woman' would immediately cease to have any value for transgender males like Serano, and they would start declaring themselves trans-snarfelblarts instead. ('Trans-snarfelblarts ARE snarfelblarts!')

So the goal is not actually to separate women from 'woman', it is rather, as I stated above, to displace us from the subject position of the social category we inhabit: we are to exist, and keep existing, as women, but we are not to be the authorities over our political or ontological reality - instead we must confess ourselves 'cis' and defer to males as the ultimate authority over what we are.

I'm usually the least offended and non confrontational person ever, but this thread is winding me up!
As I said, each to their own, but if anyone calls me cis I'd be wanting to tell them to fuck off and I never usually swear (well, apart from on this thread lol.)
If calling women cis women became more the norm, you're going to find a hell of a lot more quiet, usually get on with anything women rise up and tell you all "I don't think so."

Pick any site that talks about religious cults.

Here's one. First one that came up in the search engine:
www.culteducation.com/coping.html

Then take an exercise in copy and pasting. Like so.

When educating yourself about cults and their techniques of control it is important to recognize that there is also misleading information distributed and promoted. That is, the cults themselves may have front organizations or groups that pose as neutral resources. Likewise, some cults have sponsored/funded academics or others who may apologize (see "Cult Apologists"?) for their behavior and/or attack their critics.

It is important to research the background of your sources carefully for specific information about their historyconcerning their positions on the subject of cults. Some apologists may even insist that there is no such thing as a "cult" and that this is a derogatory term used by "religious bigots"such cult apologists typically prefer the term "new religious movements" or "NRMs."

You should also consult with knowledgeable mental health professionals, educators and clergy about your concerns. But remember, only talk with those who agree to keep contact with you, your comments and concerns confidential. Their commitment to confidentiality and discretion is very important. Any leak back to the cult member and/or the cult itself would likely have negative and often punitive consequences (e.g. bad feelings and resentment, which might result in strained communication).

Is any of this sounding familiar?

Here's another:
www.cultwatch.com/howcultswork.html
Misconceptions about cults
- Cults are easy to spot, they wear strange clothes and live in communes.
Well some do. But most are everyday people like you and me. They live in houses. They wear the same clothes. They eat the same food. Cult leaders don’t want you to know that you are being recruited into a cult and so they order their recruiters to dress, talk and act in a way that will put you at ease. One cult has even invented a phrase to describe this, they call it “being relatable”.

- Cults are full of the weak, weird and emotionally unstable.
Not true. Many cult members are very intelligent, attractive and skilled. The reality is that all sorts of people are involved in cults. One of the few common denominators is that they were often recruited at a low point in their life — more about that later.

- Cults are just a bunch of religious nut cases.
This is a common mistake people make thinking that cults are purely religious groups. The modern definition of amind control cultrefers to all groups that use mind control and the devious recruiting techniques that this article exposes. The belief system of a religion is often warped to become a container for these techniques, but it is the techniques themselves that make it a cult. In a free society people can believe what they want, but most people would agree that it is wrong for any one to try to trick and control people. In the section “Types of Cults” we will examine the various types of cults you may come across.

Rinse and repeat.

The fact this shit has formed the basis of a parliamentary bill is disturbing.

I don't get all the trans hysteria, I have many LGB friends, acquaintances I have only ever met maybe a handful of transgender people in my life . Yet I'm seeing countless programmes on BBC iPlayer about trans issues and trans kids
When it's uncommon,

I don't like the word cis gender at all it seems a bit like an insult.

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

I have seen some (Not all by a long shot, but some!) post op people use cis for themselves. As their gender identity now "matches"...

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.
1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred.
Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

If anyone is writing to an MP or trying to publicise problems with TRAs. HIGHLIGHT THIS STUFF. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.

My blood is running icy cold reading this thread.

How has this madness taken hold at such terrifying speed?

And what is the motivation of those like Justine Greening in wanting to push the GRA through?

Just can’t get my head around it all. I wish it was all a very bad dream.

I was just wondering if a word is needed for people who don't belong to the group called transsexuals?

We already have them. Man or woman. Job done.

Want another one?

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201402/why-do-people-join-cults

There is a great deal of interest in “cults” which can take many forms: They may be religious or racial, political or mystical, self-help or pseudo-psychological, but they all have half a dozen recognizable characteristics:

Powerful and exclusive dedication/devotion to an explicit person or creed.
They use of “thought-reform” programmes to integrate, socialize, persuade and therefore control members.
A well thought through recruitment, selection and socializationprocess.
Attempts to maintain psychological and physical dependency amongcult members.
Cults insist on reprogramming the way people see the world.
Consistent exploitation of group members specifically to advance the leaders goals.
Cults nearly always go in for milieu control signals: a different, unfamiliar setting with different rules, terms, behaviour patterns.
Ultimately using psychological and physical harm to cult members, their friends and relatives and possibly the community as a whole.

Most cults start their induction by trying to stop both individualistic and critical thinking like the army their job is the first to break you than remake you as one of them. This involves the introduction of a “sacred creed” that members may have to live by. Through open confession and subordination of the individual to the doctrine the cult ensures control and “purity”. Cults deliberately induce powerful emotions like fear, guilt but also pride. They tend to develop their own language, dress and signals which shows their specialness.

Oh look.

They.develop.their.own.language.

@RedToothBrush

Despite long posts and some kind of cult-leader status on some threads, your last post with a list of "warning signs", you neither gave indication of where this list came from or why it's applicable to you're argument.

Care to put some effort in to making this defensible and a little more academically rigorous?

It's a load of rubbish. I am not, and will never be, a ciswoman - I'm a woman. It's totally and utterly unnecessary.

“Neither” goes with “nor”, not “or”.

Couldn’t resist.

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

Fucking hell, really?

If that's accurate then there is no fucking way that it should be allowed to happen.

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

Why shouldn't the OP highlight it? I'm a woman (yes, a woman, not a bloody cis one) who didn't know what the word cis meant before this thread, so I for one say thank you to the OP for highlighting the issue.
I'd heard of the word before, but didn't know it was people labelling me and refusing to accept my stance as a woman (isn't that a bit hypocritical from those insisting on cis terms anyway? )
I didn't realise how strongly I felt about being a woman before someone has the audacity to tell me that I'm not!
Cheek. Got me "proper" fuming!

cantStopTheRock
I can see why these last posts of Redtoothbrush's about cults are completely applicable. Any exploration of the 'cult like' mantras and approaches are very helpful as, in a democratic society, we should be examining very closely the motivations of those who seek to threaten, silence and cause actual harm to children.
So I am happy to hear about cult like behaviour if it sheds light on why these behaviours carry so much traction. Please carry on RTB.

There are two items that I have read in the last few days. One is about a teaching assistant at the Wilfred Laurier university in Canada.

She is a young girl called Lindsey Shepherd. Aged 22. She was teaching about grammar and the critical thinking around it. Specifically about things like the pronouns ‘they’ used as a singular . She used a five minute clip from a you tube video of Professor Jordan Peterson to start a debate in class.

Peterson is not a feminist. But he has been caught up in a controversy that lasted for several years at his university. He refuses to use the pronouns demanded of him. On the basis of it breaching the concept of free speech.

He’s not particularly gender critical, and doesn’t think a lot of feminists. So it’s not coming for that angle. It’s on the basis of free speech. And the mangling of language.

Someone complained on the basis that this young teaching assistant was not ‘neutral enough’ when she introduced the clip. She does not support Peterson, and she does not come across as gender critical herself. She was merely using it as a tool.

Someone complained, we don’t know who, or how many, but the inference is that it was on the basis of transphobia.

She was taken to task by three superiors. They likened her to a Nazi and accused her of using gendered violence.

Unfortunately for them, she taped the entire meeting.

I’ve listened to about half of it, but became so infuriated by their, quite frankly, disgraceful smugness, I had to stop. I listened for about half an hour, without having any real idea of what they were complaining about. Other than, her introducing the clip in a neutral way that was not sufficient. She should have preceded it with a condemnation of the views of the speake, despite the subject of the lesson not being about those views, but about the use of grammar.

Hearing these, no doubt intelligent, men patronising bullying of this woman to the point of tears is enraging. She was told to submit lesson plans and any slides she was to use,to them beforehand and to rearrange her timetable in order to fit that in.

Hearing them go off on ridiculous tangents to support their views is even worse. Libelling Peterson, and maintaining they are intellectually superior to him on the basis of how their articles have been peer-reviewed. (Hint theirs 149, his 9000).

She published the tape. After the University was publically shamed. She got an apology.

She had been accused of transphobia. The weight of the University came down on her head. On the basis of absolutely nothing.

A cult indeed.

gendertrender.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/full-recording-lindsay-shepherd-interogated-by-wilfrid-laurier-universitys-gender-police/#comments