"Cis allies" being asked to provide "protection"

[OlennasWimple]

Can we talk about something that seems to be happening a lot at the moment: "cis allies" (note the " " ) are being asked to, in essence, prove their ally credentials but also take the risk and do the hard work apparently in order to protect transwomen (in particular) and transmen from attacks by terfs.

Just in the last week or so, there has been the video of the protestors on the stairs at the Jam Jar venue, which Bristol Sisters has claimed are "cis allies". There was a call out for "cis allies" to escort trans people home at night because they were scared that the terfs were in town and thus trans people were at risk of violent attack. The Free the She Wolf campaign explicitly asked for "cis allies" to attend the protest outside court in order to provide a human shield to protect the trans protesters who were going to be there.

And it's not just in person that "cis allies" are expected to get involved. When I posted the NUS slide presentation on "How to deal with terfs", one of the authors tweeted something along the lines of "Urgh, can a cis ally sort this out", and lo and behold a few new posters popped onto the thread to object to it, and of course MsIntern tweeted that she would get some of her MNHQ pals to take it down. (The slides also contain the suggestion that delegates "put yourself in between trans people and the TERFS")

What is going on here? How is the narrative growing that trans people are a) at significant risk of physical harm from terfs whilst also b) being significantly weaker than "cis allies" so they need their protection? Why are so many people apparently so keen to do this - to prove their woke credentials? Because they are hanging onto the coat tails of an exciting new movement and want to remain part of the gang? Why are so many of them women, when surely if you were looking for bouncers and security guards to keep you safe, you would want big burly men? (Pesky biology meaning that they are stronger than terfs)

Is this a new phenomenon? Have straight women always been asked to sacrifice themselves to the cause for no reward? Or is this just the TRA equivalent of making the sandwiches and putting away the chairs at the end of the meeting?

Vickyjo , don't condescend to us about was c*s really means. We know.

do we need to ditch the word trans and just call both women?
No.

We call women, women. We call men, men. Sometimes we aren't allowed to do that. Yet she persisted...

Vicky
Stop being ridiculous
Men are men women are women, as correctly recorded on everyone's birth certificate at birth.

Are you broken, @vickyjgo? You posted that before.

Vicky

The term "CIS" is banned on these boards because it is offensive to natal women. You should get a strike for using it. Check your inbox.

assasinated

Time loop perhaps

The last three posts do seam to assume that everyone on mumsnet agrees with them - is that why trans people in general don't come to mumsnet or the AWP meetings to discuss as they just come up against a basic belief system that excludes trans gender people?

geordie

Only if its reported

I can never work out whether that's annoying or not

And so Vickyjgo doubles down and repeats the banned "cs" word in referring to women (possibly including myself) on Twitter who do not* identify that way, and strongly reject it.

There are a number of transsexual people who post here, vicky. Some of them have given talks at WPUK meetings as well. Not sure if they count as 'trans' or 'transgender' though.

The prefix trans- in this context (originally transsexual before transgender ousted it) was about change - cf transplant, translate. Imposing 'cis' on unchanged women is a false back construction.

Oh good errol

I thought it was for transitioning and then i got confused

Vickyjgos repeat substituted 'non trans' for 'cis'. Going from bad to worse.

vickyjo
I don't care who agrees with me or not.
This is the feminist chat board. Feminism = for Females = Adult Human Female = Woman.
Lol @ trans activists not coming here. Double lol @ 'coming up against a belief system' Psst, your projection is showing.

Anyway.... the posters on MN are not organised. There are simply a lot of women here who don't agree with the trans agenda, and who do not accept #nodebate

Back to the main point of the thread "Is this a new phenomenon? Have straight women always been asked to sacrifice themselves to the cause for no reward?" no I think it's just that things like people being shouted at on gender quake the "discussion" have woken women up to the fact that keeping silent is not an option. When silent the anti trans activists have been able to claim the silent majority as theirs - but as is now being seen the silent majority actually support trans women. Frankly its a lot of shouting and time over a very small issue affecting 0.6% of the population and most of what is being shouted about has been in place since 2010. There is a really good thread running on twitter at the moment where hundreds of non trans women are literally shouting out their support for trans women. I really think its time to move on and get back to fighting for equality for all women as true feminists.

Feminism doesn't fight for some males to be equal to other males. You are welcome to start/join such a movement. Just not here on the FEMINIST chat board.

I do think it's odd that all the world health organisations all accept that trans women are women - i.e. all those actually qualified in human biology and that the World Endocrinologist Organisation altered its statement to say that all the indications are that there is a biological basis to being transgender. www.endocrine.org/advocacy/priorities-and-positions/transgender-health So if those qualified can accept the science then shouldn't we? Who are we to say that tans gender people are not biologically women? I understand that this is hard for some to accept but I do feel that the argument is moving on to how to support trans gender people rather than how to oppress them.

Feminism is the political movement for the liberation of women.
The reason that we are not "equalists" is made clear in this quote from the time of our foremothers.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France pseudonym for Jacques Anatole Thibault (1844-1924)

It's also odd that most feminists are trans gender inclusive and see gaining equal rights and the fight to stop trans people being oppressed as an aim of their feminism. Feminism has moved on and is focusing back to equal pay, period poverty, access to child care, FGM etc etc

I do feel that the argument is moving on to how to support trans gender people rather than how to oppress them.

5th rule of misogyny: Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

There may well be a biological basis to being transgender. What relevance does that have to anything being discussed here?

The endocrine society statement cites articles which don't say what the ES say they do. Read some of the articles on their reference list and see if you can find the evidence for a biological basis to being transgender.

No - they don't accept that people can change sex vicky. No one does. Not even you I hope.

the argument is moving on to how to support trans gender people rather than how to oppress them.

This is the Feminism board. The argument here is about how to support women and girls.