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????

@bendmeoverbackwards TRA is trans rights activists.

Male violence is directed against all women, including those who identify as such even if they were not born female.

Actually, a lot of male violence is directed against men as well as women. The difference with violence against women is the power differential, both physical and societal. Is there any evidence that transwomen in the U.K. are at any more risk than eg gay men?

@Electricbug321

I just don’t see the problem tbh. Trans people aren’t trying to stop women calling themselves women. Male violence is directed against all women, including those who identify as such even if they were not born female.

I don’t have a gender identity, I experience being a women through my body and societal stereotypes (which should be abolished.) But just because I don’t have one it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I don’t object to trans people wanting language to describe their identity, being called cis takes nothing away from me, and arguing about this takes energy from the funding cuts to refuges and the fight against male violence.

If women object to being called ''cis'', thats reason enough for it to be a problem, surely?

By calling us CIS, it does indeed imply we agree with those socially constructed stereotypes, which is wrong. The only factor that makes somebody a woman is being female and surviving to adulthood.

Ironically, whenever a TRA calls me CIS, they never check to see if I do agree with the gender stereotypes accorded to the female sex.

If gender identity exists, what is it? They refuse to answer that question. I have asked many times. It seems it really is about stereotypes and in perpetuating those stereotypes, they further entrench women in them. Which does harm women.

We can focus on more than one issue at a time - but if we can't even define what a woman is, we won't get very far in stopping the other stuff.

Meh, really can’t get worked up by smallchanges to language when male violenceis so prevalent and kills so many women.

Are you happy to be reduced to 'person with a cervix' in public health campaigns? And if so, would you still be happy if you developed cervical cancer because, like 40% of women, you did not realise this applied to you and that you could have accessed smear testing?

Don’t be that feminist, trying to gatekeep how all women should think. I am a feminist, and you, random person on the internet, don’t get to tell me I’m not, anymore than I get to call you cis.

You’re the one talking about “gatekeeping” feminism here, though, aren’t you? S right here: “don’t be that feminist” - a sneery put down - is quite literally you telling someone else how they should be a feminist - “don’t be that” is the very essence of telling women what feminism is acceptable.

@Electricbug321 how do you include trans men in your thinking? If you include trans women in the category of women for stats sake, do you also include trans men? So trans men are not men to be included as perpertrators? But are women to be included as victims? Or are they men, so included as perpertrators?

Why is everything always about trans women being women?

FWIW, I just can't understand how, even with all your points taken into account, it wouldn't still be important to record the facts of each and every episode of male perpertrated violence as accurately as possible. So if trans women are the victims, we need stats and facts to show us to what extent they are being targeted. I can't see why counting them as women helps anyone at all?

[quote thatonehasalittlecar]@TheKeatingFive

Did you even read the article?

They did refer to them as heterosexual, but used the term cis as a way of further specifying the make up of the couple.

Ffs, yet more transphobic bullshit on Mumsnet. Must be a day with a y in.

All this ‘men in dresses’ and sneering at ‘people with wombs’ is fucking grim. Some ‘people with wombs’ don’t want to be called ‘women’, they identify as men, but have the wrong shaped bodies.[/quote]
That's not true.

A trans man or female who identifies as non binary who is in a relationship with a male who identifies as cis, non binary or as woman would be treated the same as a so-called cis couple.

Gender is irrelevant it is sex that matters here.

@foxgoosefinch

No, I don’t agree.

You can acknowledge differences between men & women without accepting that means women are inferior. Dismantling gender stereotypes to me involves reframing those traits that are traditionally ‘feminine’ as important and valuable, not reasons to suppress and denigrate us.

Why is it such a stretch to accept women & men are physically different, but to completely discount that they can be emotionally or mentally different?

Don’t play the ‘internal misogyny is strong with this one’ card. It’s offensive and akin to the BS ‘sheeple’ that antivaxxers and flat earthers blather on about.

I’m perfectly capable of knowing and understanding my own oppression; I just don’t think the same thing you do.

And regarding the idea of women being more or less feminine - like the pp who had issues with the girls at school - that’s bullshit. There’s not one single way to be a woman, and when I’m discussing feminine traits I’m thinking more about things like empathy than affinity to pink.

Question for the thread police who are out in force here encouraging us wimmin to get back into our little corner box and stop disrupting -

Do you go on other threads in AIBU and tell all other posters they too are on the wrong board? Or is it just discussions of women's rights that bother you? I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

[quote Electricbug321]@scoutingformygirls

Male violence against women is driven by misogyny and toxic masculinity. I don’t have a problem with violence against trans women being included in stats on male violence.[/quote]
Men telling women that to be a proper biological women you must “identify” and be happy with your sex role (and all the social roles that come with it, including being a submissive, “kind” sex object) is at the very heart of toxic masculinity. That’s what embodied in the term “cis woman” - that you “align” with the sex role society has provided you with as an opposite to masculinity.

By the same token, “cis man” means aligning yourself with and accepting the social roles that come with masculinity - which are intrinsically bound up with toxic masculinity.

“Cis” masculinity is toxic. The idea of “cis” props it up and “validates” the toxicity.

Still feel the same about the term “cis” not being an issue?

Hate it. Don't know any woman, born a woman, who identifies as a woman and is okay with this. It's about time they respected us and called us women. We're not asking for this to be changed.

@TheViewFromTheCheapSeats

What fucks me of is I am a woman. A woman, who like many women, doesn’t neatly fit into the daft ‘cis ’ stereotype of a woman. I’m still a bloody woman though, 100% unquestionably so. My interests and dress, if we are making a binary choice, often fit better the ‘male’ stereotypes out there. I’m not male in anyway though. I am a variety of woman. I object though being linked to a narrow and often vapid view of what a woman must be like.

You have misunderstood the meaning of "cis"

All it means is that you you were born a woman and you still are a woman, and are happy with that.

It has nothing to do with stereotypes, what you like or dislike, how you behave etc.

@foxgoosefinch

Don’t be that feminist, trying to gatekeep how all women should think. I am a feminist, and you, random person on the internet, don’t get to tell me I’m not, anymore than I get to call you cis.

You’re the one talking about “gatekeeping” feminism here, though, aren’t you? S right here: “don’t be that feminist” - a sneery put down - is quite literally you telling someone else how they should be a feminist - “don’t be that” is the very essence of telling women what feminism is acceptable.

Except I didn’t doubt you are a feminist, so no, I’m not gatekeeping feminism. I implore you to be a more inclusive feminist, but I’m not doubting you are one.

You told me that my thinking (albeit incorrectly understood by you) means I’m not a feminist. I’m calling you out on that.

@Peach01

Hate it. Don't know any woman, born a woman, who identifies as a woman and is okay with this. It's about time they respected us and called us women. We're not asking for this to be changed.

I'm fine with it. I was born a woman and am a woman, and I am therefore cis. It's fine.

So let me get this straight. If we are to believe all this bullshit:

Trans women are women

Women are cis women

Ah........ I see what's happening here....

@Electricbug321

I just don’t see the problem tbh. Trans people aren’t trying to stop women calling themselves women. Male violence is directed against all women, including those who identify as such even if they were not born female.

I don’t have a gender identity, I experience being a women through my body and societal stereotypes (which should be abolished.) But just because I don’t have one it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I don’t object to trans people wanting language to describe their identity, being called cis takes nothing away from me, and arguing about this takes energy from the funding cuts to refuges and the fight against male violence.

I've already explained why changing the language around women is the gateway to dehumanising us. You say trans people aren't trying to stop women calling themselves women. That is exactly what they are trying to do! They even have lobbied women's health organisations and businesses to have us called 'uterus havers', 'cervix havers' and 'menstruators'. Not only does it remove women from their health information, leaflets, campaigns (confusing many women and immigrants) but by calling us 'menstruators' and 'cervix haver' they are dehumanising us and relegating us to our organs. We can't even use women anymore in Facebook groups or you risk a ban! Yet no Prostate Cancer organisation or Movember movement refers to men as 'prostate havers'. I wonder why.... They are trying to stop us calling ourselves women.

Why do you get to decide that its ''fine'', violetanemone?

If women object to them being labelled as such, surely that is a good enough reason to stop?

And the definition of CIS, I've noticed, tends to vary depending on who you're speaking to. Whilst most claim that it just means ''not trans'' - which is a bit silly, as somebody said in a previous thread recently, we don't need a term to say that we're not pelicans - others claim it means we subscribe to the gender identity assigned to us at birth.

But cis then supposes we all subscribe to a set of gender traits or behaviours or presentation. And surely you can see the issue with that?

[quote thatonehasalittlecar]@foxgoosefinch

No, I don’t agree.

You can acknowledge differences between men & women without accepting that means women are inferior. Dismantling gender stereotypes to me involves reframing those traits that are traditionally ‘feminine’ as important and valuable, not reasons to suppress and denigrate us.

Why is it such a stretch to accept women & men are physically different, but to completely discount that they can be emotionally or mentally different?

Don’t play the ‘internal misogyny is strong with this one’ card. It’s offensive and akin to the BS ‘sheeple’ that antivaxxers and flat earthers blather on about.

I’m perfectly capable of knowing and understanding my own oppression; I just don’t think the same thing you do.

And regarding the idea of women being more or less feminine - like the pp who had issues with the girls at school - that’s bullshit. There’s not one single way to be a woman, and when I’m discussing feminine traits I’m thinking more about things like empathy than affinity to pink.[/quote]
I don’t agree with you either, and for this reason: you don’t get to singlehandedly redefine language and social stereotypes. So what if you don’t think feminine traits are inferior? Billions of men, states, legislatures, religions and institutions across the globe do, so when you buy into the system, it doesn’t matter if you personally don’t subscribe to its values if the values are being enacted oppressively everywhere else.

Because you aren’t just an individual. You are part of a system, part of systemic oppression; and if you collide with it, yes you are internalising misogyny, even if you rationalise it to yourself as a valorisation.

You might think subscribing to gender traits being innate doesn’t mean you think women are inferior. But here, and across the globe, women are being looked down upon and treated as inferior and beaten and raped and literally owned by men on the justification of those gender roles and “innate feminine traits”; and to pretend otherwise, and that you’re oh so liberated from that just because you say so, is simply either delusion or mendaciousness - so which is it?

@Scoutingformygirls

I understand male violence as violence against women driven by misogyny and toxic masculinity. If a trans man kills a woman (cis or trans) then I would consider it male violence. That being said, I do believe that statistics should capture whether the perpetrators and victims are cis/trans/natal (whichever terminology is acceptable) for the purposes you describe.

@Lovelyricepudding

I don’t really like that language, I would prefer something like ‘women and others people with cervix’s.’ I think it’s possible to be inclusive whilst still using the word women.

@thatonehasalittlecar I implore you to be a more inclusive feminist
And here's the 'bekind' message. Why is it up to women, the most oppressed group to be 'more inclusive'? Why can't the men, why are causing the violence and problems for both women and transwomen, be more inclusive? I and many women are fed up to the back teeth of being told to 'be quiet', 'be kind', 'be inclusive', NO! I say the men are the ones who need to be more inclusive. It is not up to our oppressed sex to 'be more inclusive'. That is why women are angry! We've absolutely had enough of being told to 'be kind' and 'be more inclusive'. It's enough already, and time it changed.

*collude not collide - ffs autocorrect!

@thatonehasalittlecar Feminism isn't about being 'inclusive', it's about advocating for women's sex-based rights and needs. Nothing more, nothing less. Being 'inclusive' is not what feminism should be about or ever was about, right from the suffragettes down. It never has been. Nor should it ever be.

I'm fine with it. I was born a woman and am a woman, and I am therefore cis. It's fine.

You're a woman and a 'cis' woman? Why do we require it to be changed if we're perfectly happy being women? It's unnecessary. We're women.

@RosieTheHat

So let me get this straight. If we are to believe all this bullshit:

Trans women are women

Women are cis women

Ah........ I see what's happening here....

Or - cis women and trans women are all women, but if we need to clarify, then 'cis' and 'trans' are there for us to do so. Surely?

[quote TaliaB1]@thatonehasalittlecar Feminism isn't about being 'inclusive', it's about advocating for women's sex-based rights and needs. Nothing more, nothing less. Being 'inclusive' is not what feminism should be about or ever was about, right from the suffragettes down. It never has been. Nor should it ever be.[/quote]
This.