To despise being called ‘cis’?

[Ostryga]

I’m not ‘cis’. I’m not ‘cisgendered’. I’m literally a woman. I’ve just read a guardian article that calls women seeking IVF cisgendered.

Why????

Hate it.

Threads on this topic don't come up on chat/ AIBU very often but when they do, every time, the massive majority of responses/ votes show the same.

That women on MN which is a v large number of women, on the whole, aren't on board with having words that were universally understood forever eg woman redefined.

In this case it doesn't even make sense.
'By contrast, the majority of cisgendered heterosexual couples, including Megan’s sister, are required only to try to conceive for two years.

But a non binary male person and a woman of the female type will be in that position.

They may also not identify as a heterosexual couple.

So including those two words is incorrect. They are there to give the impression this about discrimination gay/ trans. When in fact by LGBT+ identity approach it's totally incorrect to frame it that way.

@Blibbyblobby thanks so much for your post above, which is fantastically clear and articulate and right.

Ostryga

Surely you're a woman or a man or intersex or trans?

People with differences of sexual development are still either female AKA women or male AKA men and trans people are also either female or male.

There is no need for any other descriptor especially not 'cis' which has been lifted from chemistry and geography much like assigned at birth has been stolen from people with differences of sexual development. Sex is observed at birth and humans develop along the female or male pathway. Differences in sexual development are variations along those two pathways.

@Katypyee

You can still be CIS and a woman. Using CIS is no big deal to who you are.

Cis-gender literally relates to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex. So you are female at birth and your personal identity is female. So for you, both align. The very definition of cis.

I honestly do not understand why so many MN'ers get their knickers in a twist over this.

Have you read the thread? Many articulate women have explained it.

Perhaps if you quote some of the explanations you don't understand, people can clarify further.

“thatonehasalittlecar
@ScrollingLeaves yes, I think that’s what they are referring to. But by using the word ‘cisgendered’ they are presumably trying to avoid any confusion from people who may not believe the word ‘heterosexual’ to refer to opposite sex attracted people (instead believing it can refer to opposite gender attracted people). “

Opposite gender identified people in a couple would need to be opposite sex too to qualify as being a heterosexual couple trying to conceive. In the context of the sentence surely biological sex is the only factor that counts.

People with genders different from their sex could be in relationship of opposite sexes and conceive (trans man and trans woman) So why say cis heterosexual, I wonder?

It might only be in private with the doctors that the people’s gender identity would be referenced when speaking to them, but they couldn’t be ruled out of entitlement for the fertility treatment.

In my opinion therefore the Guardian article was complicating language unnecessarily, and even being exclusive, by writing ‘Cis heterosexual’.

I just read this which is fantastic and sums up so much of this thread. Just gonna leave it here…

janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/?fbclid=IwAR31xFQjlDiO8JpyYeyGNUaZrQL1xG0JKei6bjyHbNxYGHOiFLElPb9nTuY

@scarpa 00:38
Thank you for explaining what you were referring to in relation to the BBC article.

@Lovelyricepudding

My comprehension is fine. So I ask again, what word do you use to describe sex if male and female do not refer only to sex? What would do you use identify mammals that gestation young without having to refer to them as 'mammals that gestation young' if in your view males (men/bulls/rams/toms/boars/bucks) can give birth?

Again, you’re not understanding. I have never tried to define ‘sex’. I’m saying that to determine ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ only in terms of sex, is limiting.

There is a difference between saying ‘biological males cannot gestate’ and ‘males can’t gestate’ because for me, a biological female can be male, if male is defined not in terms of biology / sex but in terms of gender / social stereotypes.

Do I believe a biological male can give birth? No. Do I believe a male can give birth? Yes.

Stonewall definitions:

Cisgender or Cis
Someone whose gender identity is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth. Non-trans is also used by some people.

Gender
Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth.

Gender identity
A person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else (see non-binary below), which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

@ScrollingLeaves

“thatonehasalittlecar *@ScrollingLeaves* yes, I think that’s what they are referring to. But by using the word ‘cisgendered’ they are presumably trying to avoid any confusion from people who may not believe the word ‘heterosexual’ to refer to opposite sex attracted people (instead believing it can refer to opposite gender attracted people). “

Opposite gender identified people in a couple would need to be opposite sex too to qualify as being a heterosexual couple trying to conceive. In the context of the sentence surely biological sex is the only factor that counts.

People with genders different from their sex could be in relationship of opposite sexes and conceive (trans man and trans woman) So why say cis heterosexual, I wonder?

It might only be in private with the doctors that the people’s gender identity would be referenced when speaking to them, but they couldn’t be ruled out of entitlement for the fertility treatment.

In my opinion therefore the Guardian article was complicating language unnecessarily, and even being exclusive, by writing ‘Cis heterosexual’.

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. Given the context of the article it seems obvious that heterosexual referred to a bio male / bio female relationship. Perhaps a case of trying to be inclusive and missing the mark?

Bucketfuls of appreciation to @Blibbyblobby @foxgoosefinch for your brilliantly clear and thoughtful posts which express so much of what I think but have been wary of untangling into words. Thank you so much.

Why should I follow Stonewall when I can follow science?

@thatonehasalittlecar

But the use in this article is to make it clear that they are talking about heterosexual couples encompassing a man & a woman that were born as such.

It’s a way of differentiating between the gay / single women named in the law suit, and the people who they say get a better deal from the CCG (the hetero ‘cis’ couple).

There’s a good reason for the use of the term cis in this case, so yeah, YABU.

@thatonehasalittlecar Sexuality and gender are two completely different things. They are not even related. So no, there is no justification for confusing sexuality with gender and using 'cis' when you mean lesbian.

You and the author of the article have confused sexual preference with gender. They are both poles apart.

@DoctorSnortles Will you marry me?

I think stonewall have changed the gender identity definition. I am fairly sure it used to be innate sense of being man or woman or something.

Bringing male female into it is even weirder.

Our bodies are a part of us. They just are. Some people have sex dysphoria which must be awful. But many/ most transgender people don't. They aren't transsexual.

The fact that the definitions and explanations keep shifting makes the whole thing impossible.

Despite the lack of clear definitions, the constantly moving goalposts etc.

Most women. Sorry most cis women. No that doesn't work either as many don't id that way. Well then. Many ovary havers are just not happy about having our words redefined.

Yanbu

@Enough4me

Why should I follow Stonewall when I can follow science?

Lol don't follow stonewall? It's all nonsense.

That's why I posted it.

But the use in this article is to make it clear that they are talking about heterosexual couples encompassing a man & a woman that were born as such.

There is no other type of heterosexual couple.

@ErrolTheDragon

But the use in this article is to make it clear that they are talking about heterosexual couples encompassing a man & a woman that were born as such.

There is no other type of heterosexual couple.

Exactly. Now why is that? In order to press it's discrimination.

But all that's relevant is male/female.

Could be a couple who identify as lesbian, with a trans woman and a woman.

So the couple is by new definitions neither cis nor het.

Of course there's no logical consistency to any of this. You just use whatever words you feel like at the time.

@TaliaB1

No I haven’t. As I’ve stated numerous times on this thread, heterosexual is most usually defined as ‘opposite sex’ attracted but can also be used to mean ‘opposite gender’ attracted, which would potentially explain the use of cisgendered as a clarification.

But actually, as a pp has outlined well above, it’s probably unnecessary here, given that the context of the article which implies it is about couples failing to procreate naturally.

heterosexual is most usually defined as ‘opposite sex’ attracted but can also be used to mean ‘opposite gender’ attracted,

Not by anyone who respects language or logic it can't. 'Opposite gender' attracted would be 'heterogenderal'.

I imagine it;s more inclusive because it implies all women are sub categories of women rather than there being women who are just women.

I agree with you, it makes me quite angry that I happily acknowledge other people in a way that they wish to be acknowledged but as I am 'lucky' enough to 'identify' with my 'assigned at birth gender' I should accept that I must now be called cis woman and not just woman.

I am not a subcategory of women, I am a woman. Full stop, no more information required.

If you don't subscribe to gender ideology, Cis is irrelevant. It is like being called a 'round-earther' by flat earthers, or 'English' by the Amish. We shouldn't need to worry about using the terminology of a minority belief system unless we are attending a meeting of trans people and being polite.
If you do subscribe to gender ideology, Cis should be the rarest of the rare because who the hell 100% identifies with all the stereotypes associated with their sex? Non-binary should be the most common ID, surely.
'Identifying' is so nebulous and transient anyway. The whole issue is just a mass of contradictions. It's an energy and thought vacuum.

Bortles
Being called cis matters because it is an attempt to redefine biological women as a sub-set of the word women. I am not a sub-set of women I am just a woman. I flatly refuse to have people who were born as biological males decide my identity. The word woman does not need redefining or qualifying. The word woman is closely linked to the rights and experiences of biological females and any redefinition of the word has implications for those rights and experiences.