Are you a big fat cissexist?

[Cerseirys]

Because Everyday 'Feminism' thinks you are...
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/common-examples-cissexism/

If this is the future of feminism then I despair, I really do!

Seriously?

Ah, well. That should counter all the claims that "cis" is not a slur that is used against women.

Apparently, it is impossible for men to be cissexist.

A baby doesn't generally have facial hair, breasts, an adams apple or other secondary sex characteristics that might broadly indicate whether it is biologically male or female. A baby is generally much the same as any other baby in terms of shape, so doesn't need accommodation for womanly hips, broad shoulders, or anything else which clothes manufacturers sometimes/often gender adult clothing by.

If you see a baby dressed in pink and assume it's a girl, or dressed in blue and assume it's a boy, or accommodate other people who make those assumptions, then the problem is in your sexist gendering of clothes.

tl;dr showing baby photos is fine, however you present as an adult. Get over yourselves, anyone who thinks otherwise.

I guess i am cissexist. I love my shewee its so practical.

Oh holy cow, I must stay away from links to complete idiots - I'm going to give myself high blood pressure...

I have no words, Laura.

Feminism is not about men with body dysmorphia.

I am prepared to support men with body dysmorphia in THEIR fight against the patriarchy, but it isn't mine. Just the way I am prepared to support gay men in their fight against homophobia.

Photos of yourself as a baby? I read it as showing pictures of your own offspring and thereby flaunting your fecundity. A bit nuts either way.

I read it as showing pictures of your own offspring & daring to tell people "its' a boy/girl" without waiting for he/she to tell you that's definitely her/his sex, despite the fact that that may be measured in years......

If by "not cis" you are referring to trans people, the people on this forum who you are criticising are generally very happy to be supportive of them, up until the point where they trample over women's hard won rights.

What gives you that impression, lauwraa. And why would you assume that everyone posting here is cis? I'm not cis, and plenty of other women here have said they aren't cis either.

I'm not "cis" - it's not a term I'd ever apply to myself & I'd resent it if someone tried to apply it to me.

Well. Bear with me here while I try an idea on you: I think it's really important that feminists DO apply the term "cis" to ourselves.

Before you get out the flamethrowers, here's my line of thinking.

We are told that "cis" is the opposite of "trans"

"Trans" now means not just people who want to transition from male to female or from female to male, but anybody who is not comfortable in their "assigned gender."

Gender is a social construct. A load of bollocks. (sorry)

I wrote a piece a couple of years ago in which I said I liked real ale, target shooting, short hair and brogues. Which I do. The very first comment was "this author is probably not cisgender..."

But hang on.

Why shouldn't those be things women do?

I don't want to live in a world where every woman who doesn't live in a world of Heat magazine, pink diets and aspiring to a marriage certificate over a degree certificate, is deemed "not a woman."

I'm not identifying as "on the trans spectrum," despite meeting all the descriptors of someone who is non-binary, because I think that claiming not to be cis is a cop-out. It confirms that "cis women" are all stereotypically feminine. My identity is woman - a woman who was born female and is STILL a woman no matter how short my hair or how masculine my dress or how male-dominated my hobbies.

The biggest challenge to the lunatic fringe of queer politics (and I say that as someone who is queer and has always been if not knee-deep at least ankle-deep in queer politics) is not going to be lots of women confirming their belief that non-conforming women are not cis. It is going to be lots of women challenging it. I'm non-conforming and I'm cis, because I'm not abandoning my identity as a woman just because I'm not girlish.

Call Me Cis. It has a ring to it.

(This post has been brought to you by a slight excess of Hobgoblin Gold. Go on, tell me why I'm wrong. )

AFAIK, tampon/condom/etc machines are placed in toilets purely to make money.

As a tampon machine in the gents would only potentially sell to about 0.01% of its users, against >50% in the ladies, you'd have to be a bit thick to put one there.

Yes I know business and all that, but what about people feeeeeelings?!?!

I see where you're going with that Laura, and it's interesting but I'm still not going to hoist my flag up the cis pole. For me, it's not that I kick against it because I think it is attempting to shoe-horn me into cupcakes and frilly things, when by nature I'm more of a pint of real ale, weight lifting, rugby watching substandard performer of femininity... I kick against it because I fundamentally disagree that I have any internal gender identity - I don't feel any sense of femininity, and the concept leaves me scratching my head. I'm a person until the world reminds me I'm a woman, so for me gender is all external, culturally imposed from the outside, whereas to be described as cis it would need to be internal, wouldn't it?

Posted too soon....

transactivists are keen to point out that there is more to their identity than the external performative aspect of femininity, and that it's the internal sense of self that is key to their "always having been women", however they are presenting. So my position remains the same that I do not possess that internal sense of self-as-woman, therefore cannot be cis, and furthermore, even if I did have this sense inside, I would still take exception to the concept of subjective individual feelings trumping biology.

That's ... actually one of the most insulting articles against women in general I think I've read in a while.

And "newsflash" particular fucks me off.

I wonder if there a few women on a Saga cruise who have a late-ish menopause offended by the lack of tampon machines? Or if they just shrug and apply a bit of commercial logic...

The article was particularly patronising, but I read it with interest. The whole concept of cissexism (a word that is begging for a hyphen IMO) is new to me and I'm reading about it so I can learn to sift out the useful advice (practical statements that lessen the chance of me upsetting a person who's transitioning) from theoretical navel-gazing fluff. Upsetting people (whatever their biological status) is something I try to avoid and so I welcome tips on how to reasonably manage that.

It does seem to be a bit of a minefield at the moment though, and I'm wary of getting it very wrong!

I don't really understand the construction of the word cissexism. Is it meant to be a type of sexism, rather than transphobia? If so it sort of suggests that trans people are to be considered a different sex, which I think would be insulting?

I know this is probably not the right thread, but I've just had a lightly moment, and I am truly not taking the pith.
Surely the way for trans and ancient feminists (such as myself) to find some common ground is to end the gendering of small children, so, if we go back to pale blue knitted kit for everyone, the unisex dungarees of yore mentioned by a PP and suchlike.
Unisex lego and hair cuts for older children, then half the cis-sexist -bollox- stuff is dealt with for everyone

I know it's got the feel of a totalitarian state, but if that article is representative of trans feeling in general that shouldn't be a problem.

Strike through failure

onahorse, I think many transactivists, like many feminists, want to stop the gendering young children but they are in disagreement over the outcome and the method.

For feminists I'd say the ideal outcome is that everyone is treated equally and gets to have their own areas of interest, favourite hobbies and toys, dress sense and personality regardless of their sex (or skin colour, ethnic background, presence of disabilities etc). The method would be to treat children equally without placing assumptions or expectations on them on the basis of their genitalia. Exceptions made where sex differences are important - I.e. teaching girls about periods and boys about nocturnal emissions.

Whereas the outcome for transactivists, as far as I understand it, seems to be that once children hit a certain age they can decide their gender. Which surely must be based on gender stereotypes? The method: to not tell anyone whether the child is male or female until the child has decided whether it prefers playing with dolls or cars.

It would seem I am cissexist, according to that article.

The whole thing reads like a parody.