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????

would you object to a different descriptor, for example agender woman?

Yes, I would object. To be agender would suggest I agreed with gender ideology. I don't.

Most of my life has been spent ignoring, dismantling, disagreeing with any and every instance of gender stereotyping I encounter.

Why would I use gender as a yardstick to be measured by?

I am female, a woman. That's enough.

A couple of people have asked you to clarify in case dunne was an actual person that we should be reading about

You literally said go read some john dunne and now youre getting snarky because people are attempting to do what you suggested

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Im not nitpicking at all

Dont be so rude

Im talking to purgatory

And it's very much appreciated!

So I am not supposed to be googling a poet named John Dunne then

@Helloise

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.

Oh, I know you can.

I’m not really trying to defend you, I’m just angry at the mean girls shouting everyone else down. I read too much of this nasty thread in one go.

They’re like the playground bullies upthread, except they probably wouldn’t dream of being such horrid people irl.

Although to be fair I wouldn’t tell anyone irl that I don’t give a fuck about their playground trauma irl, either.

@takealettermsjones I would object to any descriptor that isn't simply.....woman. I ask why you think woman can't stand on it's own, why we need to add something in front of it? Why can't woman just be enough? It has been enough for decades and decades and centuries until now.

@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.

There are radio adverts currently running on Scottish radio stations to raise awareness of the importance to attend cervical screening which don't use the word women once. Not once.

The phrase which is used is 'people with a cervix'. They talk about '2 people dying a day' not women. They talk about 'if you feel uncomfortable, you can ask for someone of the same gender to examine you'.

Given the historical shocking failure of NHS Scotland regarding cervical screening which came to light recently, the alarming drop in women attending cervical screening and the fact that during the debate of the Forensic Services Medical Bill, elected representatives voted against rape survivors being able to request a female examiner, the push should be to make the language used more accessible to women (including the many who don't know what a cervix is), not less.

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.

I agree with this. Plus we already have a word for women. Males who don't identify as men and females who don't identify as women are welcome to make up their own labels for themselves. But they're not welcome to force a label on me, or compel me to use the language they prefer.

@Helloise I agree with your suggestion that we refer to women in the main body of e.g. a medical article and then further down or in a footnote or separate text box say that people who identify as transmen or non-binary etc who have a cervix should also attend screenings etc.

I'm as GC as they come but I would be happy with that. It's the replacing of women with person that doesn't make sense. I read an article about menopause the other day that said menopause is "when a person doesn't have a period for 12 months" and thought how ridiculous as that means prepubescent girls, all men and boys are therefore in menopause.

If you have a look at the Scotgov link a pp and I posted, it just refers to "people". Not women. Because they are thoroughly captured by this ideology.

We even have had ridiculous statements tweeted and written in news articles like eg "10% of people suffer from endometriosis" where they've obviously done a find and replace for "women". Which makes it completely misleading how widespread the problem is.

What is “cis”? I’ve never even heard of the term until this thread!

It literally just means that your biological sex aligns with your innate gender identity

It's an identity label its fans like to impose on women primarily, including non believers in their ideology.

@TaliaB1

Then if you 'don't give a fuck' about women being oppressed (as if it wasn't obvious from your posts you 'don't give a fuck' about women being abused and oppressed), then you shouldn't be offended if we 'don't give a fuck' about TW's experiences. It goes both ways. If you can't give a fuck about women, don't expect us to give a fuck about you and your side.

You get what you give. You reap what you sow. Etc.

I’m not trans.

Shrieking void? Don't give a fuck about our trauma? Angry red hole?!

Wow. What an astonishing reaction to women asserting they don't wish to be called a certain word.

Helloise on discussions like this before where ‘vagina haver’ was used on female targeted products the difference between that and male targeted stood out.

Woman became a difficult word to use but on say prostate cancer site it is centred around men

prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/are-you-at-risk

Men / man is used repeatedly

There is a section that says this site has been developed for men but it may apply to you too

prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer

I prefer this centring of target market - so women used throughout with an addition like this

The phrase which is used is 'people with a cervix'. They talk about '2 people dying a day' not women. They talk about 'if you feel uncomfortable, you can ask for someone of the same gender to examine you'.

That’s absolutely shocking. That’s potentially going to exclude women with English as a second language, women with learning difficulties, and all the other women who form the 40% of women who don’t know what their cervix is (this figure is from Jo’s Cervical Can er Trust)

The phrase which is used is 'people with a cervix'. They talk about '2 people dying a day' not women. They talk about 'if you feel uncomfortable, you can ask for someone of the same gender to examine you'.

Given the historical shocking failure of NHS Scotland regarding cervical screening which came to light recently, the alarming drop in women attending cervical screening and the fact that during the debate of the Forensic Services Medical Bill, elected representatives voted against rape survivors being able to request a female examiner, the push should be to make the language used more accessible to women (including the many who don't know what a cervix is), not less.

Definitely. This pandering to a tiny self interested minority is harmful to women.

@lllllllllll

What is “cis”? I’ve never even heard of the term until this thread!

It's a term used by people who believe we all have an innate 'gender identity'. These people claim that if your 'gender identity' 'aligns' with your sex then you are 'cisgender'.

The nastiest, most bullying thing on this thread was said by you @thatonehasalittlecar.

You've repeatedly lied about what others have said.You've made ridiculous claims that people have been bullied on this thread. You can't quote anyone doing any such thing, so you've just made it up. You say that when you read women's comments here, all you see is a "gaping red hole". Honestly, that sounds unbelievably misogynistic to me. It sounds like you have quite the psychological hang up about women talking.

If I were in your position, I would be feeling quite silly and really rather ashamed of myself right now.

Nobody has said you are cars you misread that post.

Unsurprisingly!

thatonehasalittlecar I didn't say you were.

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

A couple of people have asked you to clarify in case dunne was an actual person that we should be reading about

You literally said go read some john dunne and now youre getting snarky because people are attempting to do what you suggested

You’re right, it was never a reference that was going to land here, even without the autocorrect fail.

Awkward.

Anyone got an answer as to why I shouldn't wholeheartedly reject the word "cis" as a descriptor for myself yet? In nearly 950 posts I haven't seen it.

@takealettermsjones
I’m with you

@lllllllllll

What is “cis”? I’ve never even heard of the term until this thread!

liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/