Cis labels

[sooperdooper]

I'm kind of new to reaching 'Peak Trans' and I had this thought...

So if, as the trans lobby keeps repeating 'trans women are women', why would they need to call biological women 'cis'?

If they really are female there would be no need for a distinction because by simply 'identifying' as female they would be

So they've made the distinction themselves by labelling biological women cis, doesn't that make the whole discussion about 'trans women being women' invalid by their own admission?

Sorry if this is totally obvious but I'm trying to work through my own thoughts on this

I'm a woman. I have a womb and Xx chromosomes and all the other female reproductive parts. It's not normally how I would choose to introduce myself to a bunch of strangers, but the way things are going, it might become necessary. - I wonder if The Storybots could sing a song about me?

Thank you, @venusinscorpio.

It is bullying. I've said it before, it feels like being in an abusive relationship felt. That gaslighting and emotional blackmail

I really agree with this.

Doesn't bother me

I'm not gay, I'm straight
I'm not black, I'm white
I'm not trans, I'm cis

etc.

I absolutely respect that, @Hont1986. But it does bother me. Why don't my feelings matter?

I am expected to respect others when they say that they identify as a woman, not a man - and I am happy to do so - so why do I not deserve the same respect when I say that I identify as a woman, not a ciswoman?

But isn't a ciswoman a woman? It's just an adjective to distinguish someone as a subset of the overall classification of 'women'? As in tall woman, black woman, and so on.

FWIW Soros is a favourite target for the alt right (ie neo-nazi) pests that proliferate on twitter - I'd check very carefully before believing internet criticism of him. Very carefully. It's a bit like 'Rothschild'. See that name and you know that there's a 99% chance that it's mad antisemites spreading shit.

As for the currency manipulation example - the UK was spending a fortune to damage its own economy by keeping its currency artificially high, probably because it had become a sign of national virility. Cockwavingas economic policy. Paul Krugman had a nice line that we should put a statue up to him in Parliament Square for forcing us to stop being stupid.

Hont1986

I don't think it is. Woman isn't an identity, neither is it a description of a woman who wants to express herself using one of the 56 gender descriptors.

The 'cis' is redundant.

The word woman isn't based around how they want to see themself. It's a biological description.

Hont1986 - I agree, but the argument here is that transwomen aren't a subset of women but mentally ill men. Therefore 'cis' is unnecessary and indeed offensive because it implies that there are women who aren't 'cis'. Someone who thought gays were perverts would probably say the same about 'straight'.

I would use 'female' as the purely biological description, but 'woman' has some gender/cultural connotations with it.

What do you mean by 'cis', Hont?

If it's 'biological women who prefer to be called 'she'', I'm with you.

If it's 'biological women who are stereotypically feminine/wear skirts/are ok with being discriminated against/don't mind being catcalled/want to take a paycut/believe in girlbrain/have an inner sense of their own gender whatever the fuck that is', no thanks.

The first one - I thought that was the only version to be honest. I've never seen cis used to mean girly/feminine/etc.

Well, I'd be OK with 'women-calling-themselves-she' as cis, 'men-calling-themselves-she' as a definition of trans (and vice versa for transmen), all with no extra connotations, but it seems to have become far wider and woollier than than, and involve this mysterious, unknowable inner being, or 'living/acting/thinking like a woman' and all the rest of that 1950s bollocks, hence the objection to cissiness.

It doesn't matter what the connotations of the word 'woman' are: the definition is clear.

Anyway, I'm off to research some concrete.

I also dislike the sound of the prefix 'cis'. It's very close to 'sissy' or the sound of a cat hissing. I doubt this is unintentional.

I've just realised that my definition would make more sense if 'transman' was a male-calling-themselves-she', rather than 'transwoman'. Damn. D'you think we can persuade people that they'd like to change the terminology they use for themselves, because I said so?

If not, why not?

How does your radical feminism define women in order to examine structural oppression against them due to biology, NotCarylChurchill?

Cis- and trans- are terms from chemistry, I believe. Nothing to do with cat hissing.

@Hont1986 - I don't see myself as part of a subset of women - I see myself as a woman. If trans men want to identify as women, that is fine by me - I will respect that choice. But I don't see why I need to be shuffled off into a subset - especially as the prefix 'sub' very clearly implies 'lesser' or 'beneath' to me. I do not wish to be defined as being beneath or less than trans women - that would be male privilege in action.

I do not believe I am superior to trans men, because I was born with XX chromosomes, and a fully functional set of female genitalia, internal and external. But I am not less, either.

Er. Transwomen would be a subset of women too.

So....

NotCarylChurchill

Can you give me any definition of woman that includes transwomen?

I haven't said that transwomen would have to be a subset of women, @Pansiesandredrosesandmarigolds. I am simply explaining why I object to the term cis being used to label me.