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????

thatone

It landed with me

Would probably have landed with others as well

Boasting about being the only person who can understand 16th century poetry on a completely unrelated thread on a parenting website really isn't the win people appear to think it is.

It's 'awkward' that most people don't have a full knowledge of the back catalogue of a metaphysical English poet writing in the late 15th C?

Or - it's awkward in that you chose a very particular image to describe how you see a group of women?

I'd go with the latter, frankly.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Boasting about being the only person who can understand 16th century poetry on a completely unrelated thread on a parenting website really isn't the win people appear to think it is.

Oh, I Donno. Shall I compare thee to a scunner's day?

Its awkward that it was spelt wrong

Bloomin’ automatic amirite

I think if I wanted people to take my posts seriously, think about them and engage with them, I’d probably stop and log off before I got to the bit where I called people bitches, suggested they were thick etc. It just has a wee bit more credibility.

Anyway, how about those poll results, eh?!

I have read some Donne. Erotic, secular and religious. Can't see what you were getting at.

Not the Constancy of Women, that's for sure.

What is the latest on the poll, I'm on the phone app and can't see?

1667

8% yabu
92% yanbu

Cheers Rufus

@beastlyslumber

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.

Oopsie! I’ve thrown a curveball.

I didn’t mean a literal, actual gaping red hole.

I meant kind of a metaphorical one. Sort of a representation of all that swirling anger. I didn’t even really mean I saw it.

But anyway, that’s why I suggested reading some John DONNE (thank you, @RufustheBadgeringReindeer 🙌) to whichever woman suggested I should probably read the words instead of seeing red holes. Cos he was one of the metaphysical poets, innit?

Just to be clear to that lady - I did really read the words. I wasn’t having a seizure.

I honestly haven’t made it up. Have a look at some of earlier discussions where someone piped up with ‘I’m a woman and I’m not XX’ and she was told (and I’m paraphrasing, just so you know 👍) that she didn’t really count because there were so few of her.

Anyway, she’s quite rightly asked me to butt out as she’s entirely capable of fighting her own battles, so I’ll leave it there.

You don’t think it was bullying, I think it was.

It’s almost as if we don’t all think the same. Which is weird because we all have the same chromosomes and body parts and we all love pink, amirite?

The readers of this thread were first accused of being middle-class, as if women who aren't middle-class are less likely to object to being called cis, and now they're being generalised as unlikely to pick up references to John Donne?

Make up your minds...

For the avoidance of doubt, I went to the kind of school where hardly anyone got even a C in GCSE English, including me, so just assume I won't get such elevated references. I'm not ashamed of being working class and ignorant people like me are allowed to have opinions too.

Still holding steady at 8 and 92% with a whole 12 people thinking OP is being unreasonable against the rest of the 1500+

Anyone got those labels for the sex spectrum axes?

No?

So it is just a theory that has not been proven and should be ignored.

@ArabellaScott

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.

Not a reaction to women not wanting to be called cis. A reaction to the pile on and what I see as bullying. As you were.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

Me neither.

Amirite? Is that paint? Like whitewash for gender ideologists?

@Sophoclesthefox

I think if I wanted people to take my posts seriously, think about them and engage with them, I’d probably stop and log off before I got to the bit where I called people bitches, suggested they were thick etc. It just has a wee bit more credibility.

Anyway, how about those poll results, eh?!

Rather....

The hypocrisy klaxon has been running rather hot on this thread. As has the projection klaxon.

It has rather, hasn't it?

Yes, I'm aware that you are using a metaphor when you refer to the "gaping red hole" you see when women talk. You clearly have a problem with women talking if that image represents your state of being.

I honestly haven’t made it up. Have a look at some of earlier discussions where someone piped up with ‘I’m a woman and I’m not XX’ and she was told (and I’m paraphrasing, just so you know 👍) that she didn’t really count because there were so few of her.

Your idea of "paraphrasing" is to make up things that no one said, either directly or indirectly, or even hinted at. The poster herself was clear she didn't think she had been in any way targeted about her DSD - because she wasn't.

You are a liar.

Well, Eresh, if you don’t find circular logic, appeals to be kind, demands that you accept being called cis whether you like it or not, being patronised and finally being called names persuasive, then I am afraid this thread will draw to a close and leave you unenlightened…

@lllllllllll

You should have a look at this. Take a big bottle of water and a packed lunch. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

The readers of this thread were first accused of being middle-class, as if women who aren't middle-class are less likely to object to being called cis, and now they're being generalised as unlikely to pick up references to John Donne?

Make up your minds...

For the avoidance of doubt, I went to the kind of school where hardly anyone got even a C in GCSE English, including me, so just assume I won't get such elevated references. I'm not ashamed of being working class and ignorant people like me are allowed to have opinions too.

It’s so hard to make up our collective mind. Honestly it’s just beyond me.

So can I have my own mind, please?

I know it’s a big ask, it’s just I am a totally separate woman to the one who correctly identified Mumsnet as predominantly middle class based on the data gathered by the site and its commercial partners.

'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.'

The thing is that redefining the word woman to include male people, means that one of the handful of words that has always meant female is no longer appropriate for use in the way it always was used. Ditto girl. Female is currently shifting in definition as well.

So half the population of the world, billions. Who have been oppressed globally for as long as we know. Have no words to describe themselves as a group.

That's massive.

The suggested replacements. Eg. People with vaginas. Ovulators. Menstruators. Are dehumanising eupamisms.

Nothing changes for us does it.

The thing I find extremely interesting is that the old language is still used widely including by those who are fully supportive of the new language.

With the recent murders of women that have been in the news a lot.

When those who say gender > sex say. More must be done about VAWG. Do they mean female? Or identity?

If a vagina haver does not identify with any gender, or is agender etc. Then this vawg does not include them? That must be correct.

When talking about restrictions brought in by the taleban restricting/ oppressing women and girls. Shouldn't it say people with vaginas? Because that's about sex not gender. And woman now means gender.

Why the inconsistency?

If large numbers of bodies with vaginas don't feel a gender ID. Then they are not women. So women's rights are not a thing that relates to them?

How does all this work in practice? At a group level, globally?

I can't see how at all.

Oh and single sex things are to do with bodies not feelings.

How can anyone not know that?!