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????

@Ereshkigalangcleg I expended several hundred words and quite a bit of my time on detailed arguments and explanations in good faith and was basically called a liar by the person who I took the time to reply to. Feel free to go back and read what I wrote if you would like. I'm entitled to my own health history and to my own understanding of my own identity, whether or not you or the rest of your compatriots like it. People here REPEATEDLY said that XY=Man and that chromosomes determine sex and I think I quite clearly explained why that isn't fucking true. But I'm nothing more than a freak, an exception, an anomaly. I don't accept that. I don't have to fucking accept it.

I'm not going to play sweetie-pie with someone who treats me like shit nor will I play sweetie-pie with you, who supports her. Have a great day after your nap.

1427 votes. 92% of those women say no, don't agree, don't believe in it, don't want to use that word.

That seems pretty cut and dried to me.

It's fairly pointless spending so much time scolding and ordering women to be kind, to be so careful with their language to be gentle and not to offend or hurt, to be so respectful of trans people's choice of words and identity because this is so important -

• when apparently the answer to women saying no is a lot of insults, rudeness, abuse, shaming and 'shut up and do it anyway'.

No. This is one sided relationship, I do not like how I'm expected to put up with being treated, and I'm not doing it. Apparently 92% of women here feel similarly.

Time to give up on enforcing this label I think.

I know what disorders of sex development are, and it doesn't have any bearing on why I reject "cis" as a personal description, Heloise so I'm not sure why you are trying to shoehorn it in on this thread, it's not relevant.

Sex is defined by gametes: large immobile gamete = female; small mobile gametes = male. There are no spectrum of gametes. You need one of each to reproduce.

@Ereshkigalangcleg for the last everloving time. The SPECIFIC point I was disputing was the REPEATED statement on this very thread that only men have XY chromosomes. That was it. That was all. I was disputing it because it's not true and I, personally, find it offensive. We could have left it there, but foxgoosefinch immediately came at me with four hundred and seventy three gotcha questions about my own gender identity and my own opinions about transgender identities in general. She didn't like my answers, and clearly you don't either. I didn't shoehorn anything. All I know is that the GC contingent should really get their shit together and learn how to support their positions (if they are, indeed supportable) without throwing people like me under the bus. FFS.

I think we can all agree that only men (other than those with very rare DSDs) have XY chromosomes. For the sake of ease, most people omit the contents of the brackets.

@Artichokeleaves

1427 votes. 92% of those women say no, don't agree, don't believe in it, don't want to use that word.

That seems pretty cut and dried to me.

It's fairly pointless spending so much time scolding and ordering women to be kind, to be so careful with their language to be gentle and not to offend or hurt, to be so respectful of trans people's choice of words and identity because this is so important -

• when apparently the answer to women saying no is a lot of insults, rudeness, abuse, shaming and 'shut up and do it anyway'.

No. This is one sided relationship, I do not like how I'm expected to put up with being treated, and I'm not doing it. Apparently 92% of women here feel similarly.

Time to give up on enforcing this label I think.

If I were to post a poll on, say, The Daily Mail website about support for the current government, would you take the results as a reasonable and accurate assessment of the feelings of the entirety of the UK? What if I were to post the same poll on the website for The Socialist Worker? Would that be more accurate?

The idea that you can get an honest assessment of how ALL women feel about the word "Cis" by posting a poll with a loaded title on the most infamously "gender critical" mainstream website in the UK, if not the world, is utter nonsense. At most, you have determined that 92% of mostly middle-class women who frequent the most gender-critical website in the UK, who were immediately drawn in (positively or negatively) by the title "Does anyone else despise being called cis", also despise being called "cis".

If I were you I'd definitely avoid applying for work in market research 😂

You aren't being thrown under a bus! But we don't have to quietly acquiesce when you use such emotive language to defend an interpretation of DSDs, and a commingling sex and gender, to make a point.

Nobody would deny anyone their right to have whatever identity they desire, trans or otherwise. There are, after all, almost as many modalities of being as there are human beings. But an opinion isn't fact and many of us are more aware of the facts than some might imagine.

I don't want to support any position I fundamentally disagree with, or know is based on an interpretation of science that I don't believe to be logical.

The idea that you can get an honest assessment of how ALL women feel about the word "Cis" by posting a poll with a loaded title on the most infamously "gender critical" mainstream website in the UK, if not the world, is utter nonsense. At most, you have determined that 92% of mostly middle-class women who frequent the most gender-critical website in the UK, who were immediately drawn in (positively or negatively) by the title "Does anyone else despise being called cis", also despise being called "cis".

My, how loaded!

Infamous? If you don't like it exercise your right not to be offended by simply not reading threads that offend you!

The idea that you can get an honest assessment of how ALL women feel

Oh don't be so silly.

Right here, over a thousand women have said they don't like it or want it. Why are you rushing to make all kinds of rude jeerings to dismiss that and make clear they don't matter?

Mumsnet is one of the few places where people are allowed free speech. A lot of online forums are fully captured by gender ideology and won't allow women to say what they really think. It's also anonymous, which is important as TRAs seem to think it's OK to victimise, harass and abuse anyone who doesn't agree with their cult ideology.

I'll note the 'middle class' bit too, as another jeer. Want to add old, white, able bodied and straight too while you're busy being prejudiced?

Because I'm afraid I'm none of those things.

mostly middle class women being the most GC? Because they post at MN and MN is middle class?

I think there is some misunderstanding here, I don’t think working class women are woke and non-GC…. If anything, I think that the women who are the most likely to accept CIS are white middle class women.

[quote Helloise]@Ereshkigalangcleg I expended several hundred words and quite a bit of my time on detailed arguments and explanations in good faith and was basically called a liar by the person who I took the time to reply to. Feel free to go back and read what I wrote if you would like. I'm entitled to my own health history and to my own understanding of my own identity, whether or not you or the rest of your compatriots like it. People here REPEATEDLY said that XY=Man and that chromosomes determine sex and I think I quite clearly explained why that isn't fucking true. But I'm nothing more than a freak, an exception, an anomaly. I don't accept that. I don't have to fucking accept it.

I'm not going to play sweetie-pie with someone who treats me like shit nor will I play sweetie-pie with you, who supports her. Have a great day after your nap.[/quote]
Can you point us to where you claim those things were said? I myself posted a long post about chromosomal, biological, legal and social sex earlier in the thread. None of us are actually saying anything like you claim - and can you tell me again about how much you know about DSDs if you think they are a spectrum? Because DSDs are very definitely not a spectrum in any sense of the word, and I’d be extremely surprised if any medical consultant told you they were. (Spectrum is not actually a word used by and large in the biological sciences, by the way - it’s actually a metaphor taken from physics.)

Your debating style is very familiar, by the way. Plop in and tell us slightly wrong things, be patronising, then claim anyone who asks questions or disagrees is “aggressive”? Then resort to demanding replies and petulant comments about needing a nap if these aren’t as you like? Many of us here have dealt with this style many times in our lives and it doesn’t exactly faze us — nor does it make you look either convincing or personable.

Regardless of the arguments against the methodology - it's over a thousand women who have seen this poll in AIBU and voted against being known as cis. It's demonstrably not an uncommon take.

[quote Helloise]@Ereshkigalangcleg for the last everloving time. The SPECIFIC point I was disputing was the REPEATED statement on this very thread that only men have XY chromosomes. That was it. That was all. I was disputing it because it's not true and I, personally, find it offensive. We could have left it there, but foxgoosefinch immediately came at me with four hundred and seventy three gotcha questions about my own gender identity and my own opinions about transgender identities in general. She didn't like my answers, and clearly you don't either. I didn't shoehorn anything. All I know is that the GC contingent should really get their shit together and learn how to support their positions (if they are, indeed supportable) without throwing people like me under the bus. FFS.[/quote]
What rubbish! This isn’t a thread about DSDs. This is a debate thread about the term “cis” and gender ideology. So you come on and post a post then get annoyed that people ask you questions? That’s a “gotcha” these days? How long have you been using the internet, my dear?

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

You aren't being thrown under a bus! But we don't have to quietly acquiesce when you use such emotive language to defend an interpretation of DSDs, and a commingling sex and gender, to make a point.

Nobody would deny anyone their right to have whatever identity they desire, trans or otherwise. There are, after all, almost as many modalities of being as there are human beings. But an opinion isn't fact and many of us are more aware of the facts than some might imagine.

I don't want to support any position I fundamentally disagree with, or know is based on an interpretation of science that I don't believe to be logical.

This literally doesn't make sense to me. I'm not being sarcastic. Wjem did I ask anyone to quietly acquiesce? If you have an argument, and you can making it without insulting me or calling me a liar, I'll try to respond, if I have time before my next zoom meeting 😂 And in all seriously, what does " many of us are more aware of the facts than some might imagine." even mean? What facts specifically? I'm aware of all kinds of facts. We are probably aware of many of the same facts. They are open to interpretation. I think "one in 6,000 people and probably a lot more who are undiagnosed" is a population of people who deserve consideration and inclusion, not to be dismissed in a set of brackets as @Blueskip has done above. You may think "one in 6,000 people" is a statistical blip and we're wasting our time considering them. Make that argument, if you want to. Explain why your interpretation of science is more logical than mine. I want to understand and I would love to engage with people who have cogent arguments and are actually, genuinely open to the chance that they might be wrong or that they might learn something. I LOVE it when I learn something (once I get over the sting of being wrong, at least, LOL). One thing I've never seen once in any of these threads is anyone who is genuinely open to discussion and argument - it's an echo chamber and anyone who doesn't agree is treated as nastily as I have been, or usually much worse. At least that I've seen. Maybe there have been a hundred great debates with decent people being decent to each other that I've just happened to miss.

I feel ashamed for women who have given in to this "cis" nonsense.

Wait, you're seriously offended that I put a rare condition in brackets? Wow.

I just see them as either TRA supporters or people pleasers, who don't think the views of other members of their sex are as relevant as those of males.

I despise having people tell me that I have no right to exist and that my identity is not valid (often in very aggressive tones). I also despise being told that gender is only biology (mumsnet is literally the proof that there is a ton more to it than that).
If you are assigned female at birth and see yourself as a woman, you ARE a woman, more specifically a cis woman. That is the definition. I am assigned female at birth but do NOT see myself as a woman. I’m not a woman of any description, i’m nonbinary.
A good friend was assigned male at birth, sees herself as a woman. She is a woman, more specifically a trans woman.

No, itsanewdah, women aren't a made up nonsense term because your personal ideology says they are.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I just see them as either TRA supporters or people pleasers, who don't think the views of other members of their sex are as relevant as those of males.

See who?

Yes, it's ridiculous and unnecessary. I would strongly object to being called that. I have as much right (actually much more) to want to be called what I actually am, as a trans person has to insist people call them whatever they say they are on that day.