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????

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.

I only consider myself a woman because my understanding of that word as my biological sex. If a male can be a woman then it has nothing to do with biological sex. If it's nothing to do with biological sex then what is it? Was I born it? Am I happy with it? I don't know.

@NothingSafe If we need to clarify, 'women' and 'transwomen' are there for us to do so. Cis is not needed.

@NothingSafe

But haven't we already. Woman and trans woman.

This works... Surely?

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?

Only if you've got a coherent definition of 'women' which women (actual female ones, which is the only thing the word has meant for hundreds of years till very recent attempts to change it) find acceptable. I don't accept that transwomen are women. I accept they may wish not to be thought of as men, and may wish they could be women but that wish isn't a reality.

I’ve been accused up thread of being rude. Maybe I was, maybe I’m just angry.
I’m angry because I’m sick of being defined by men, being told who I am by men and been told how I should think by men.
Cis is just another way of men telling women what to do and who to centre in their politics.
No thank you.

@thatonehasalittlecar you say "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."

Do you not think this is a really regressive way of viewing society? It suggests that men can't or shouldn't be empathetic while women can and should. This isn't only damaging to women and girls as they are the ones forced to "be kind" and make way for men, but it also damages men as it contributes to the idea of toxic masculinity so that an empathetic man is somehow seen as a "lesser" man than a non-empathetic man. This is damaging both to men and women.

The fact that gender ideology depends on these regressive stereotypes is one of the many reasons it is harmful and toxic.

[quote TaliaB1]**@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.[/quote]
I am perfectly within my rights to object to someone telling me I’m not a feminist because I don’t agree with them.

This is not me saying ‘be kind’ to everyone, or ‘be kind’ to trans people, this is me saying that foxgoose telling me I’m not a feminist is bullshit and offensive. Neither of you gets to decide what feminism looks like.

Who said you weren’t a feminist?

I'm not sure whether I can express this clearly but I think that transwomen forcing the term cis-women highlights the fact that many transwomen don't understand male privilege and what affect this has on women. In fact, I'd maybe suggest that it is some transwomen asserting transwoman privilege as a way of maintaining that privilege and until they understand/identify/empathise with the oppression of women in general and continue to assert privilege, then they haven't fully completed their transition.
If they truly want to be welcomed into the 'sisterhood' then they need to come and stand with women and fight against male privilege and stop trying to assert trans privilege.

For those wanting to understand the terminology and know more this is a fantastic thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

Another term I can’t stand - ‘they’ for non binary. They is PLURAL 🤦‍♀️

*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?*

You are doing exactly what you accused me of earlier - not listening or not understanding. I’m not saying I get to redefine language or stereotypes single handedly, I’m saying that I believe there are differences. Not that there is one single way to be a man or a woman, but there are differences between the sexes, both physical and emotional and mental. The current patriarchal system favours men and their existence more than women. This is a huge issue that must be dealt with, but denying those differences (or only accepting the physical ones, which is what you seem to be doing) isn’t helpful.

What we need to focus on is ending the oppression and we don’t do that by denying our femaleness, we do it by fighting for it to be valued.

I can only conclude that by denying any innate female qualities, your internal misogyny is strong - you can’t even bear to think you aren’t identical to the ‘better’ sex.

Anyway, I’ve got a pile of my husband’s washing to do and I haven’t even started planning his dinner, so I better skidaddle.

Enjoy shouting into the transphobic void that is Mumsnet.

[quote thatonehasalittlecar]@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

Are you being serious?

Do you honestly not see any difference between men & women except physical? You don’t acknowledge any notion of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits?

They might be socially constructed, or they might have innate biological bases, perhaps linked to our differing roles in reproduction, but to pretend they don’t exist is disingenuous.[/quote]
Yes, it's based on sexist shite stereotypes. Why the hell would anyone want to reinforce that? Especially women?

I'm not transphobic but nor do I want to be called cis. However I probably would just suck it up for that reason, but that doesn't feel great.
Because, as women we have grown up with a society that says men are some how more important than men and should bow down to them. Transwomen, on the other hand, have been conditioned by male privilege.

*More important than women

I can only conclude that by denying any innate female qualities, your internal misogyny is strong - you can’t even bear to think you aren’t identical to the ‘better’ sex

My innate femaleness includes my XX chromosomes, tits, cunt and other physical characteristics.

That's it.

Beyond that there is no 'innate femaleness' to fight for.

But the above is why I fight for the definition of women to include biological sex and for women-only spaces.

@foxgoosefinch

Who said you weren’t a feminist?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee did here.

Ah, I see the problem. You believe that the old-fashioned stereotypes have some merit or accuracy. Feminists don't.

Apologies, foxgoose, I mixed you up.

Someone above mentioned the phrase ‘women and people with wombs’ or whatever body part it is!

Yeah I used to think this was a good compromise too, I’ve changed my mind recently, as this still redefines woman as an identity not a material reality. Which has implications for women - in law, in healthcare, in policy etc.

Another term I can’t stand - ‘they’ for non binary. They is PLURAL 🤦‍♀️
^This

More than happy to use something other than s/he but I find using plurals awkward and unnatural.

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

@YetAnotherSpartacus

You believe that the only differences between the sexes are physical. I believe that there are emotional / mental differences too; my worldview is not mechanistic.

What we can agree on is that harmful stereotypes need to be abolished, so I’m off to work on that in my own limited way.

[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]
They could identify as elephants without a trunk, it would still be bullshit! And I may pretend that they are elephants for an easy life, but I can't be expected to believe they are actually that!

@bendmeoverbackwards

Another term I can’t stand - ‘they’ for non binary. They is PLURAL 🤦‍♀️

They can also be used in the singular.

Ah, I see the problem. You believe that the old-fashioned stereotypes have some merit or accuracy. Feminists don't.

That's not saying you are not a feminist, that's defining feminism in a way you may not agree with. You are then choosing to see that as you not being a feminist.

Which is interesting given this whole thread being about changing definitions of words and the affect that has on people's identities.

*What we need to focus on is ending the oppression and we don’t do that by denying our femaleness, we do it by fighting for it to be valued.

I can only conclude that by denying any innate female qualities, your internal misogyny is strong - you can’t even bear to think you aren’t identical to the ‘better’ sex.*

What a load of…well. It’s definitely not me who keeps misrepresenting what others are saying.

Of course there are innate differences. But they aren’t “gender traits”. They’re the material facts of our bodies. Our physical differences; our reproductive capacities; our different needs as a result of this. But none of these are “innate gender traits”: they are the realities of sex.

Valuing femaleness is valuing those things - our capacity to give birth; our roles as mothers as a result; our innate value as human being who are 50% of the species. What it’s not is valuing “women’s special ability to be empathetic as an innate trait” or whatever. I’m actually delighted not to be a man (I’m bisexual/lesbian so liking women’s bodies kind of comes along with that, funnily enough… ) I like women because they are women, not because they have lovely feminine traits that I think are super nice personality traits to have, or because I’m attracted to their inner gender identity.

Our innate woman-ness is our biology. As women.

If we are using the phrase 'people with wombs/cervixes' where does that leave those of us who have has hysterectomies? Are we now a subset too?