To wonder what the point of cisgender is?

[Squatternutbosh]

I’ve just read an article where cisgender is described as “someone who identifies as the sex they were assigned at birth”. Is this an actual thing? Why is this even given a label? Surely if you were born male or female and you live as a male or female then this is what you “identify” as. (If you even feel the need to identify as anything, rather than just living your life as you).

It seems like everything must be given a label these days. The worlds gone fucking mad.

If the person’s genitals were irrelevant to the topic at hand I wouldn’t necessarily query it either way if you said that. If you pushed me to consider it then I’d assume you meant a cis man as in our society the use of cis isn’t totally widespread so it’d be more likely for you to say ‘trans’ if the person was.

I the fuck does anyone in the real world have ANY time for this utter bollocks ?

Do people really spend their day getting tied up in knots trying to persuade females who are born females - who have never wished to be anything other than females to describe themselves as anything other than female ? It's like the fucking 'I want to be called Loretta sketch from life of Brian. ' Symptomatic of having lost their grip with reality.

How about this for super simple.

If your female call yourself female.
If your Male call yourself Male.

If your not sure call yourself trans Male/trans female.

Basically it just leaves the vast majority of us in a default position and those of you who feel the need to make a statement can make one. Everybody lives and those of us who find the whole thing a complete nonsense get left in peace.

DianaPrincessOfThemyscira if I described people as men or women you would have no idea what I was talking about without cis as a prefix?

I would assume that yours is nor a trans-friendly ideology and therefore by men for example, you meant all people with an XY chromosome.

That does not affect the issue of how to quickly discern the subset of these people who do things the "normal" way and those who are trans women, non-gender binary, etc etc/

Non trans people are not a bloody subset. They are 99.99999999% of people on this planet!!

Subset (noun): a part of a larger group of related things.

Cisgender people are not 100% of all people. Therefore cisgender people are a subset of all people, just like trans people are.

The size of the subset is irrelevant.

Or were you just trying to make out like because more people are cis than trans, trans people matter less?

If you can navigate to this site I’m surprised you can’t navigate to google to find out what subset means before embarrassing yourself.

Or were you just trying to make out like because more people are cis than trans, trans people matter less?

If your argument is sound you shouldn't need to make shitty little false comments

If your argument is sound you shouldn't need to make shitty little false comments

Sorry, but where else in the thread were you taking people to task for ‘shitty little false comments’ when PP were saying transphobic shit?

Transwomen are part of the group of males. If subsets are necessary then they come under male or man. Women are female.

lynsey

I have in the past yes

Probably not on this thread as I haven't read all of it

And its not shitty comments i have a problem with

I just think that if (up until now) someones posts have made sense is very frustrating when they start putting words in other peoples mouths

Someone can make whatever comments they like...but inferring some in saying something they are categorically not is shoddy behaviour

So to clarify...feel free to make little digs about someone's ability to google, im very similar in temprement

But ive seen the 'oh so you are saying....' by others posters, and it makes them look like twats

Just thought you were making some good arguments

Sorry, but where else in the thread were you taking people to task for ‘shitty little false comments’ when PP were saying transphobic

But you obviously missed my point

And i dont think you are sorry at all

I did miss your point, I understand a little more now (thanks for the clarification), though I’m not too keen on being policed as to how I put my points across.

I specifically made that comment to that poster because of comments she’d made earlier in the thread which show her ideology loud and clear, so I thought it wise to ask whether she did actually want her question answering or was just making a point. Not something I’d have said to a newcomer!

Earlier in the thread I made the mistake of answering a question someone asked, only to realise I’d been stupid in doing so because, again, they weren’t actually asking. Just faux naive innocent ‘but what about this?’ when they knew full well their answer and were just trying to whip things up a bit. It’s boring.

I wouldn’t read the thread if I were you, there’s little new beyond the other hundreds of horrible threads on here about trans issues!

Thank you lyndsey

Wasnt intending to police as thats fucking irritating as well

Its just ive been caught out before with a 'oh so rufus...you are saying you would like to kill puppies and make a beanbag out of them'

When I wasn't saying anything of the sort...slight exaggeration but you know what i mean

Non trans people are not a bloody subset. They are 99.99999999% of people on this planet!!

I think the percentage is lower than that. But whatever the figure is, if someone wishes to refer to all people who, for example, posess an XY chromosome and who are not trans, gender fluid, bi gender etc etc, then a shorctut is needed. In this example, "cis men" does the trick.

I see Rufus, the straw man argument!

But yes, I have a very strong suspicion that is exactly what the poster meant, hence asking.

I appreciate your thoughts :)

Who’d have thought that’d be so controversial eh, JAPAB?

dadjoke so you are saying I don't notice my gender identity because I am well matched? And I think you also said gender identity was immutable?

That does not tie with my experiance. As a teenager I identified as a boy, called David. If today I wrote you a short sketch of myself, you would probably think I was a man. People from other cultures who do not recognise my name as female assume I am male. Can be amusing when we meet for the first time.

Unfortunatly the shape of my body meant that I couldn't get away with that. So I grew up and accepted my sex is a woman but beyond some obvious biological features being a woman is completely orthogonal to my identity.

I suspect that realising that your body is just fine as it is and that only stupid people apply gender sterotypes or let them restrict what you do is a much healthier approach to this than saying my body is wrong and I am a man really.

But if you want to tell woman that they are wrong in what they think and feel, well that tells me all I need to know about you .

Earlier in the thread I made the mistake of answering a question someone asked, only to realise I’d been stupid in doing so because, again, they weren’t actually asking. Just faux naive innocent ‘but what about this?’ when they knew full well their answer and were just trying to whip things up a bit. It’s boring.

Are you talking about my 'what is wrong with just using transwomen and women' question? You have brought this up a couple of times on the thread and I didn't know if you were referring to that question I asked?

But if you were:

I wasn't using the question to 'stir things up'. I posed the question with the answer that I have in my head already ready (ie. There is nothing wrong with using 'transwomen' and 'women' and that 'cis' as a prefix is unecessary) ready to counter argue when someone tried to answer the question with a different point of view to mine. I don't think that is a particularly controversial way of going about things when debating something.

I did use a slightly sarcastic which may have muddied the waters somewhat, so apologies, but then I would have thought that from my previous posts on the thread my stance was already pretty clear.

No problem Moon, I just find it a bit disingenuous, or rude in some ways, to use that as a debate tactic, you know? If you ask a question you’ve already decided on your answer to, why not put that in your post? Or state your views for someone to counter? I guess I hasn’t read the usernames attached to the previous posts very well as despite reading the thread I hadn’t attached any views to you specifically so it was a surprise to answer your question then be met with your views in response.

The emoji definitely muddies waters, but it could be worse, at least it wasn’t 😂

trans and and not trans would suffice when a clarification needs to be made . It is much less offsenive as it has no implication as to the not trans persons feelings about gender identity, and includes those non trans people whose gender identity is ambiguous.

See we can distinguish and be nice to people and not tell people what they think and feel all at the same time.

Yes, perhaps I assumed that because I has already written quite a few posts on the thread clearly stating my stance, that it was clear the question I was posing was simply backing up that stance rather than a brand new question. But I guess that wasn't the case.

I agree about the emoji, so many misinterpretations! 😂

I don’t have a problem with ‘non trans’ but I suspect as many people would have an issue with it as do with cis.

I reckon that some people who are against cis probably resent there being ANY term at all to distinguish them as not being trans, as so many cis individuals seem to resent being seen not as the ‘norm’, and having their gender defined by what it’s not, I.e. not trans.

Whereas cis is a thing in itself, it doesn’t rely on being contrasted against anything else, you are cis whether or not someone else is trans.

Kinda like how a lot of people who are black/Asian dislike the term ‘non white’, it paints white as the default and casts their identity only as existing in comparison to somebody else’s identity. Much more empowering to be able to say ‘I am black’ rather than ‘I am non-white’.

Kinda just thinking out loud about this stuff. As a cis woman I have no issues with ‘non trans’ but I think it’s good ‘cis’ is an option too.

Lyndsey

Black people don’t ask for other ethnicities to describe themselves as “non-black” though

Cis and ‘non trans’ are different. Black people aren’t asking white people to call themselves non-black (not that I know of, obviously there is no universal like there isn’t a universal ‘all trans people are doing this’). Some trans people promote the usage of cis to make it more clear when discussing trans issues and so there is an equivalent term for ‘trans’ in the community of people who were born and whose genders have remained congruent with their sex at birth.

Whereas I don’t know of any trans individuals asking people to refer to themselves as non trans. Surely that would seem more of an insult than cis, for the reasons I detailed above?

The reason I don't like cis is that it is defined ( from memory by stonewall) as a person who's gender identity matches their sex. Thus it implies an innate gender identity.

Secondly because it is frequently used as an insult.

Thirdly it is used to imply that cis is a type of woman and that transwoman is a type of woman. I believe in the definition of woman as a person born and socialised female. Thus transwoman are not a type of woman.

trans and and not trans would suffice when a clarification needs to be made

"Non-trans" would not exclude non-gender binary people as one example. So wouldn't refer to quite the same subset of humanity.