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????

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Oh dear.

Go read some John Dunne

I hope this isn't going to be one of those exclusionary cultural references that only middle class Americans know.

Not sure. Do they know much about the great English poets?

In hindsight possibly not the best choice of reference. I wouldn’t say the gaping red hole is really a conceit; too close to reality.

Anyway, I’m mean, you’re all the most enlightened carriers of the one true feminism. Well done. You’re awesome.

Can’t wait for you to fix the patriarchy.

Hi, I was the person who said Trans women do exist. They are indeed a subset of women. It's been quoted a few times but I can't remember who by, apologies.

I suppose I should have considered that it was a loaded statement and explained myself, but in the actual comment I was only talking about cis as a descriptor for a subset of people.

But yes, I do believe that gender exists, so I think that trans women are a type of woman in the societal sense. I don't believe they are biologically female, but I think that for all intents and purposes (they will be treated by society as though they're female, which sadly does include all the suffering that has been mentioned upthread) they are women.

Obviously that's my opinion and I know not many people here agree with me. I just want to say though that I made this opinion fairly clear early on and nobody piled on me? People asked me challenging questions but that's fair. I left the thread because I feared it would turn into a bun fight but (for the most part!) it's been reasoned debate all the way. To the person who called foxglove not bright, how ridiculous. She has been engaging in good faith in articulate debate all the way through.

With regard to the labelling, I'm happy to use people's preferred pronouns, I'm also happy not to refer to anyone as cis who doesn't want to be. I think that's what tolerance is? I can have my own beliefs but still respect others' wishes. I also think that the need for single sex spaces is a really important issue that doesn't just go away when you make a decision to include trans women when talking about women. I do not claim to have all the answers. I hope there's a way of making trans women and all women feel safe (deliberately not using cis here as not wanting to offend!), and I think we all need to work together to find it.

Incidentally I have been called a TRA for having the above views, which I don't agree with. I've also been accused of not being a proper feminist etc. I understand why people react that way, but I think if it's about respecting people's beliefs, there can be unfairness and assumptions on both sides!

I would like to ask a genuine question though - those who object to cis, if I'm understanding it right, it's mainly because you do not have a gender identity, so you are just a woman i.e. female sex? If that's correct, would you object to a different descriptor, for example agender woman?

@Helleofabore

Have a look at how @Helloise has been treated. That’s what I’m talking about.

I am quite sure that everyone can see where the aggressive posting is coming from.

I’m going to say foxglove.

Am I right?

Do I win?

Personally I think it’s fine. As someone in medical marketing and research who cares more about helping people than I do about an ideology either way, I would want to balance being inclusive but also avoid alienating more conservative people. So I would probably lead with women but I would add something about people who don’t consider themselves women. So something further down the page like “other people with a cervix can also suffer from cervical cancer, including transgender men, non binary people, and people with DSD”. Obviously needs a bit of work but that’s the idea- lead with biggest group but don’t ignore the others. I’d also consider a separate smaller campaign just for transgender men and NB people.
There have been a couple of comments like “oh should I remind my husband he doesn’t have a cervix” which I get, it can seem silly, but I’ve done quite a bit of research and you would be surprised about how little some people know about their own anatomy. Reminding a trans man that he can still get cervical cancer might save his life.

I meant foxgoose!

Damn it.

I guess I don’t win.

Its Donne…

@takealettermsjones

Hi, I was the person who said Trans women do exist. They are indeed a subset of women. It's been quoted a few times but I can't remember who by, apologies.

I suppose I should have considered that it was a loaded statement and explained myself, but in the actual comment I was only talking about cis as a descriptor for a subset of people.

But yes, I do believe that gender exists, so I think that trans women are a type of woman in the societal sense. I don't believe they are biologically female, but I think that for all intents and purposes (they will be treated by society as though they're female, which sadly does include all the suffering that has been mentioned upthread) they are women.

Obviously that's my opinion and I know not many people here agree with me. I just want to say though that I made this opinion fairly clear early on and nobody piled on me? People asked me challenging questions but that's fair. I left the thread because I feared it would turn into a bun fight but (for the most part!) it's been reasoned debate all the way. To the person who called foxglove not bright, how ridiculous. She has been engaging in good faith in articulate debate all the way through.

With regard to the labelling, I'm happy to use people's preferred pronouns, I'm also happy not to refer to anyone as cis who doesn't want to be. I think that's what tolerance is? I can have my own beliefs but still respect others' wishes. I also think that the need for single sex spaces is a really important issue that doesn't just go away when you make a decision to include trans women when talking about women. I do not claim to have all the answers. I hope there's a way of making trans women and all women feel safe (deliberately not using cis here as not wanting to offend!), and I think we all need to work together to find it.

Incidentally I have been called a TRA for having the above views, which I don't agree with. I've also been accused of not being a proper feminist etc. I understand why people react that way, but I think if it's about respecting people's beliefs, there can be unfairness and assumptions on both sides!

I would like to ask a genuine question though - those who object to cis, if I'm understanding it right, it's mainly because you do not have a gender identity, so you are just a woman i.e. female sex? If that's correct, would you object to a different descriptor, for example agender woman?

Yes I would, as that still presupposes there is a typical way to be a woman that isn't just to do with biology.

I prefer to just be called a woman. We don't need to live by gender tropes ; indeed its much better if we don't.

That's a fair and reasonable post, missjones. I wouldn't call myself "agender" though as I simply don't accept the parameters set by gender identity ideology. I don't "identify" as a woman, I am only a woman because I am female. I see gender as purely a social construct based on sex stereotypes and traditional expectations around the sexes.

Oh, my search results can't be adulterated @heloise. I don't use any parameters, don't keep any search history, always go incognito.

So my search would have been just what Google throws up of its own accord.

Sometimes the person who disagrees with you isn't as stupid as you hope they are!

@takealettermsjones

Hi, I was the person who said Trans women do exist. They are indeed a subset of women. It's been quoted a few times but I can't remember who by, apologies.

I suppose I should have considered that it was a loaded statement and explained myself, but in the actual comment I was only talking about cis as a descriptor for a subset of people.

But yes, I do believe that gender exists, so I think that trans women are a type of woman in the societal sense. I don't believe they are biologically female, but I think that for all intents and purposes (they will be treated by society as though they're female, which sadly does include all the suffering that has been mentioned upthread) they are women.

Obviously that's my opinion and I know not many people here agree with me. I just want to say though that I made this opinion fairly clear early on and nobody piled on me? People asked me challenging questions but that's fair. I left the thread because I feared it would turn into a bun fight but (for the most part!) it's been reasoned debate all the way. To the person who called foxglove not bright, how ridiculous. She has been engaging in good faith in articulate debate all the way through.

With regard to the labelling, I'm happy to use people's preferred pronouns, I'm also happy not to refer to anyone as cis who doesn't want to be. I think that's what tolerance is? I can have my own beliefs but still respect others' wishes. I also think that the need for single sex spaces is a really important issue that doesn't just go away when you make a decision to include trans women when talking about women. I do not claim to have all the answers. I hope there's a way of making trans women and all women feel safe (deliberately not using cis here as not wanting to offend!), and I think we all need to work together to find it.

Incidentally I have been called a TRA for having the above views, which I don't agree with. I've also been accused of not being a proper feminist etc. I understand why people react that way, but I think if it's about respecting people's beliefs, there can be unfairness and assumptions on both sides!

I would like to ask a genuine question though - those who object to cis, if I'm understanding it right, it's mainly because you do not have a gender identity, so you are just a woman i.e. female sex? If that's correct, would you object to a different descriptor, for example agender woman?

He he. That was me.

I don’t really think she’s not bright. I just think she’s deliberately misinterpreted a lot of the counter arguments and ignored other ones.

So I wouldn’t consider her debate ‘good faith’.

I’ve done quite a bit of research and you would be surprised about how little some people know about their own anatomy

Someone linked to something saying that 40% of females dont know that they have a cervix

@takealettermsjones

Hi, I was the person who said Trans women do exist. They are indeed a subset of women. It's been quoted a few times but I can't remember who by, apologies.

I suppose I should have considered that it was a loaded statement and explained myself, but in the actual comment I was only talking about cis as a descriptor for a subset of people.

But yes, I do believe that gender exists, so I think that trans women are a type of woman in the societal sense. I don't believe they are biologically female, but I think that for all intents and purposes (they will be treated by society as though they're female, which sadly does include all the suffering that has been mentioned upthread) they are women.

Obviously that's my opinion and I know not many people here agree with me. I just want to say though that I made this opinion fairly clear early on and nobody piled on me? People asked me challenging questions but that's fair. I left the thread because I feared it would turn into a bun fight but (for the most part!) it's been reasoned debate all the way. To the person who called foxglove not bright, how ridiculous. She has been engaging in good faith in articulate debate all the way through.

With regard to the labelling, I'm happy to use people's preferred pronouns, I'm also happy not to refer to anyone as cis who doesn't want to be. I think that's what tolerance is? I can have my own beliefs but still respect others' wishes. I also think that the need for single sex spaces is a really important issue that doesn't just go away when you make a decision to include trans women when talking about women. I do not claim to have all the answers. I hope there's a way of making trans women and all women feel safe (deliberately not using cis here as not wanting to offend!), and I think we all need to work together to find it.

Incidentally I have been called a TRA for having the above views, which I don't agree with. I've also been accused of not being a proper feminist etc. I understand why people react that way, but I think if it's about respecting people's beliefs, there can be unfairness and assumptions on both sides!

I would like to ask a genuine question though - those who object to cis, if I'm understanding it right, it's mainly because you do not have a gender identity, so you are just a woman i.e. female sex? If that's correct, would you object to a different descriptor, for example agender woman?

Thank you for this calm and reasoned post.

Personally, I don't like the label agender as it assumes that I believe in gender. I would say I am a gender atheist as I think that gender ideology is a belief system to which I do not subscribe.

I also despise being told that gender is only biology

This is the issue with conflating words.

SEX is only biology. It can't be changed.
Gender is sex role stereotypes, presentation, personality, changeable.

Gender identity only has meaning to those who claim to have one. To the vast majority it is entirely Irrelevant.

Can you clarify? John Dunne (a buddhist scholar, I think) or John Donne?

Apols, but poetry is a bit lofty for me.

Thoughtful post takealettermsjones

If that's correct, would you object to a different descriptor, for example agender woman

Personally, I would still object to that, because it’s like saying you’re an atheist and having someone say “ah, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?”. I reject the application of the worldview to me, and saying someone who doesn’t have a gender identity is agender still supposes that they subscribe to the uiversal applicability of gender identities.

Am ignoring the scrap upthread, I think some people would like to have the thread deleted…

Donne

Its Donne

I would like to ask a genuine question though - those who object to cis, if I'm understanding it right, it's mainly because you do not have a gender identity, so you are just a woman i.e. female sex? If that's correct, would you object to a different descriptor, for example agender woman?

My preference is woman. It doesn’t need a further descriptor for me.

I just want to say that I don’t think that I personally as someone with a DSD have been especially ill treated because of that. I do think that there are lots of posters here who have treated my ideas with less respect than I’d like and who seem a bit hard of thinking but they (mistakenly) probably think the same of me. I appreciate the sentiment but I don’t feel like I need defending by a third party. I can stick (and have stuck) up for myself.

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Its Donne…

You know how foxgoose’s autocorrect turned ‘Dunne’ into ‘Donne’ a few posts up?

Mine did the opposite.

Gosh, only nitpicking at someone who disagrees with you?

Tut tut. That’s not in the spirit of this fair and reasoned debate, now, is it?

Personally, I would still object to that, because it’s like saying you’re an atheist and having someone say “ah, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?”. I reject the application of the worldview to me, and saying someone who doesn’t have a gender identity is agender still supposes that they subscribe to the uiversal applicability of gender identities.

Exactly.

Im not nitpicking at all

Dont be so rude

Im talking to purgatory

Am ignoring the scrap upthread, I think some people would like to have the thread deleted…

Very sensible.

@Helloise

Personally I think it’s fine. As someone in medical marketing and research who cares more about helping people than I do about an ideology either way, I would want to balance being inclusive but also avoid alienating more conservative people. So I would probably lead with women but I would add something about people who don’t consider themselves women. So something further down the page like “other people with a cervix can also suffer from cervical cancer, including transgender men, non binary people, and people with DSD”. Obviously needs a bit of work but that’s the idea- lead with biggest group but don’t ignore the others. I’d also consider a separate smaller campaign just for transgender men and NB people. There have been a couple of comments like “oh should I remind my husband he doesn’t have a cervix” which I get, it can seem silly, but I’ve done quite a bit of research and you would be surprised about how little some people know about their own anatomy. Reminding a trans man that he can still get cervical cancer might save his life.

Ugh my quote didn’t work, this was in response to the poster who asked what I thought about the “women and people with cervixes” phrasing

Helloise
Leading with women isn't just about conservative views. A number of studies have shown that a fair number of women don't know what a cervix is. If you add in people who don't have English as first language then the message needs to be straightforward. You need to make sure the largest group actually understands that the message is directed at them. It is perfectly reasonable to add the additional wording you suggest to reflect those who do not identify with the word woman but are still at risk.