Do women like 'cis'?

[CisMyArse]

Bloody gone and tangled myself in a twitter argument.

I don't like the term Cis, not many here do neither. I should have worded it differently, but I can't let it go. Someone has asked me how I can speak for all women and I don't know how to retort

That's the thing though, Raven - I feel like I'm being manipulated with a false analogy.

People with autism, people without autism - all of them are people.

People with vulvas - women. People with penises - not women. In fact, men.

It's not that transwomen are a subset of women therefore we need a new name for the other subset of women. It's that they are not women at all.

Still people of course and worthy of respect and tolerance and human rights. Just that they don't get to appropriate women's rights.

My son has autism and my godson has downs, I don’t call other children neurotypical.
If something comes up in conversation I’ll say ‘Bear has autism so it’s different for him in this way...’ rather than ‘well a neurotypical child would do it this way’ etc

My autistic child needs suppport but your child doesn’t.

Trans women need support but women don’t.
For example

Aye well I suppose that's the key difference Hairy, I've got no problem using the phrase women for transwomen. I do feel that transwomen and women aren't on an equal playing field, which probably makes me a bigot but thems the breaks I suppose.

Greenyoga, I'm a teacher so would use neurotypical at work. It's a handy little word.

But quite a lot of women do need support. It's just that support will look different for different people.

And quite a lot of kids will need support, and that will look different too.

One of my kids is neurotical and I think most definitely the other is not. They both need different sorts of support. One isn't better or more important than the other.

I refuse the label CIS, that is coercively imposed on me without my consent, by a bunch of trans-fascists. Much like the Yellow Star for Jews - it's intent is erasure. The fact that many can't see nor accept that dark reality is disturbing. Demanding people accept labels, or insisting we change our language to incorporate adjectives of their pleasing, 0.1% of the population, is a human rights violation of a huge order. Language is very important when used as a weapon to discriminate against a target group - women.

But the poor trans-lobby are the victims here /s - what a load of propaganda shit worthy of Goebbels.

I refuse the label CIS, that is coercively imposed on me without my consent, by a bunch of trans-fascists. Much like the Yellow Star for Jews - it's intent is erasure. The fact that many can't see nor accept that dark reality is disturbing

That's exactly how I feel too, and made me "peak trans" and look further when I saw it as a label on here and looked further into it.
I'm not having cis. You can't erase biology. Be a fully transitioned woman by all means.
Just don't box up all actual women and expect them to budge up into a new label.
We're all women, right? Your words. So why the need to relabel and put us all in boxes?
I've never particularly identified as feminist before.I bloody will do though if you start telling me I've been renamed.
NO to cis. It's fucking insulting.

I think that ‘Neurotypical’ can be a bit problematic because what is neurotypical?

However if I asked an informed person what autistic or NT meant, they could give me some kind of explanation. Nobody would be saying you could just ‘identify’ as autistic.

On the other hand nobody can explain what the group ‘women and trans women’ have in common with each other beyond what they would share with any random group of humans.

I see cis as something similar to using the phrase neurotypical. It would be hugely offensive to say normal people vs people with autism/Downs syndrome etc. So in that vein I can understand using cis to differentiate between trans women and normal women, and using it makes no difference to me in those discussions

Actually this is quite a useful comparison.

There is autism (and a couple of co-morbid conditions) in my family, friendship group and relationship.

We do tend to distinguish between 'ourselves' and 'the others' when talking to each other because it's a handy way of us talking about ourselves with autism and all the other people who don't have autism.

Probably much in the same way that some transpeople (who refer to themselves as women when they are TW) find it useful to have a signifier to make the distinction for themselves.

However, I don't expect the rest of the populaton to accept that descriptor and call themselves neurotypical too.

But it isn't even analogous because the term neurotypical isn't ever used against people as an insult.

People with autism don't sneer "you're just an NT, your opinion doesn't count" at someone.

People with autism don't threaten NT people based on their NT status.

I don't understand why women are so willing to use it when it's a perjorative term that was coined by a group of males who hate us enough to wish and cause us harm and carries and delivers such malice.

Women don't need a qualifying label;

Women isn't an 'umbrella term'..

Women is fine.

The only thing I see differently is that accepting that people can identify as a gender is a step towards ditching gender. Not a smooth or perfect step, but no progress is ever smooth or perfect.

If as a society we accept that people are free to pick their own gender, or no gender, this clearly shows that gender is not necessarily related to body parts

I can see why some people fall into thinking that but the opposite is true.

I've seen trans people discuss how innate gender becomes apparent at 4. So if a boy moves to playing with dolls, they are expressing that they are female. Can you not see how reductionist that is? Far from liberating gender from the constraints of your body, the movement seeks to reinforce really restrictice stereotypes.

I appreciate that gender dysphoria can be all-pervading and make life very unhappy but the trans movement is about so much more than dysphoria now. Gender fluidity seems to involve people saying that they knew they were a different gender because of the toys they wanted to play with. Therecis an interview describing someone's bi-gender partner saying when this man is having a day where he's female, he's more emotional and suddenly crap at driving.

How do I pick my own gender beyond scrutinizing the available stereotypes and picking whether I like action heroes or barbies, cooking or body building? I can't understand the process outside of that.

I've seen trans people discuss how innate gender becomes apparent at 4.

This is it - I can't see how suggesting that gender is innate, and fits into masculine and feminine boxes, irrespective of sex, is a step forward - it's actually formalising the idea of gender, which previously, we could all see was socially enforced based on a person's sex.

I see it as a step in exactly the wrong direction - the right direction, in my opinion, being to let anyone wear/enjoy what they want, and not feel that that means they have the wrong body, or that they have to mutilate it in order to be allowed to live their life as they wish.

Completely agree, Fencing.

All this talk of gender when what people are really talking about is characteristics, individual differences and personality.

Or lack thereof.

Really, what is the problem with providing services that meet the physical/biological needs of males and females but then allowing space and respect for people to express themselves however they wish without telling them they are 'wrong' somehow?

The whole thing is an utter nonsense.

I don’t like it. I wasn’t that fussed until it came up in an episode of Greys Anatomy. A transgender doctor was looking for someone to perform untested surgery on her newly created vagina. In her pitch to the surgeons she said if this surgery was successful it could help cis women. No no no. Women. It will help women. You know, those born with a vagina!

czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/1990/transgender-toolkit.pdf

This is the East Sussex Transgender toolkit. It includes the following advice:

"My daughter doesn’t want a boy changing next to her, what if he looks at her body?
For example, in this scenario it would not be appropriate to remove the trans person from the changing rooms if a concern is raised by a parent or carer. In this situation, it would be far more appropriate to look at offering an alternative changing arrangement for the child who feels uncomfortable around the trans person. A Human Rights response would be to state that although the individual in question may have the body of a boy, they are in every other respect a girl and as such have the right under the Equality Act to change with the girls and to be treated fairly as such. It is the responsibility of members of staff to support both trans* students and cisgendered students to feel comfortable around one another."

If you aren't clear what "trans*" means, the definition is:

"Transgender/Trans* – An umbrella term which can be used to describe people who are:
• Transgender
• Transsexual
• Cross-dresser
• Neither male nor female • Androgynous
• A third gender
• Or who have a gender identity which we do not yet have words to describe."

This is already policy, supported apparently by Councillor Nick Bennett,
Lead Member for Learning and School Effectiveness and Stuart Gallimore, Director of Children’s Services, East Sussex County Council. I'm not sure whether they have read the leaflet.

We are way past the point where everybody just realises that gender is silly.

Gosh that is so scary. There's a thread where people are arguing that of course 8 year old boys should change separately from the girls and that statement says someone who decides to be a cross dresser takes precedence in a changing room and anyone with a problem has to go elsewhere...

I don't get how the "rights" of the few men with this issue trampled on all woman.

Wow, having yet another peak trans moment with that one... (Surely I must have ticked off all the 8000m peaks by now?)

So a girl feels uncomfortable undressing next to a cross-dresser (not a trans person, a cross-dresser), and it's the girl's fault?

And as for the "Or who have a gender identity which we do not yet have words to describe" - how the fuck could anyone type that with a straight face? It's a whole new level of complete bat-shittery beyond all previously known levels of bat-shittery.

I am now officially teapot gender. My preferred pronouns are "wetter than a digestive biscuit" and "stand-the-spoon-up-in-ful."

So a girl has absolutely no right to change in safety with her own sex. If she complains that men are in her space it's her fault.

Already. The guidance is already there.

So are schools already implementing this? It's truly scary.

It did occur to me the leaflet might just be a proposal and not official policy (don't trust everything you find on the internet...), but it is on the East Sussex website and Nick Gallimore is the current Director of Children's services.

I can never get past the basic reality crunch that you are supposed to base your objective real experience on someone else's subjective feelings.

No one expects the removal of sex segregation. You're perfectly entitled to feel uncomfortable at mixed nudity and to have privacy from having to be undressed in front of someone of the opposite sex. But if that person of the opposite sex, with the objectively and obviously sexed body says they feel in their head that they are not really that sex inside - your experience of their body means nothing and you must learn to just switch off your discomfort and your own needs for privacy and separation.

Why does a feeling in someone's head trump material reality?

Why does one person's objective experience have to be invalidated and repressed to enable another person's subjective feelings? (and let's face it this is largely girls being told to stfu to enable a boy)

Why do we continue with the hypocrisy of sex segregation at all under these circumstances?

This is batshit. I have every sympathy for a child living with gender dysphoria, I have the greatest support for children socially 'transitioning' which is basically that a child of either sex can have and express their gender choices anyway they feel like expressing them, and there should be strong rules about teasing and bullying for gender non conformity. But this whole 'someone with a penis is a girl now and must be viewed as one' is total bollocks. If that child doesn't feel comfortable in the facilities designated for their sex then understandable and they need a third space so they have choice and they have access to privacy and dignity. Demanding that the privacy and dignity of girls be sacrificed on the altar of validation and girls will be punished for resisting is indefensibly wrong.

(Sorry Stuart Gallimore is currently head of children’s services)

This. ^

Absolutely ZERO real world experience. A lifetime if privilege and no understanding of real oppression. But we wanna make the rules!! Because we so liberal!! So woke!!

What loops said about tutors and uni syllabus makes me thing that language is being geared towards establishing cisgender as the accepted denomination. There's obviously big money behind this.

Using 'just woman' implies that woman is the natural order of things and trans are something other
well sorry to be contrary but I find the above accurate

And to brighten the mood here's a clip of the end of Some Like It Hot:

well sorry to be contrary but I find the above accurate

Yes - it's just how mammals reproduce.

It's only a problem if you ascribe all sorts of qualities and virtues to men and women (gender) that don't exist.

It is a bit frightening if uni courses are adopting it wholesale as language shapes so much. And as we see from loops they aren't questioning it!

Using 'just woman' implies that woman is the natural order of things and trans are something other

Well yes. They are. That's the whole point.

I don’t mind being called cis, it doesn’t bother me at all.