Can you explain to me what a cis woman is? Am I one?

[WaitrosePigeon]

Sorry, this must sound stupid. I’m confused as to what cis woman means. I was born female. I’m just a woman aren’t I?

Cs was invented so TRAs could bracket transwomen and cswomen as both being women. It's totally dishonest.

Yes it is that difficult to use the word cis.

Because I understand the purpose and intent of lanuguage, not just its face value meaning. It is not a neutral word, its a damned political one.

Unlike woman, which is just a descriptive none political word that belongs to the female sex.

I'll be forced to use the word 'cis' over my dead body. You can 'cis' my arse if you don't like it.

Women are only too aware of the power of language. I studied linguistics and how meanings of words can change over time. I am sure all the 'woke' people out there know fine well what they are trying to do.

Cis is not a word for the opposite of trans. It is plainly being used over and over and over and over in the hope that one day it will become the norm. That, as has been said above, trans women will be referred to as women, and women will become a subset of that, not the real thing.

You can all fuck right off, you might as well have a flashing neon sign with your intentions writ large, because women can see you a mile away.

Exactly completely and utterly what flippin said

Trans used to mean transition

So a man transitioned into a (trans) woman

Now thats changed completely so cis can be brought in as the opposite of the word trans (when used in chemistry)

I have to say, given the maelstrom of feeling over the new guidelines, and attitudes between users and mods, the one thing I'm bloody grateful for is Justine banning the words cis and terf as slurs.

It's a novel and very satisfying experience knowing that one cannot be bullied with the use of those terms.

You actually linked that piece by Serano on Michfest to claim defining women by their relationship to gender roles is widely accepted? Criminy!
Cool story, bro.

On the subject of it being offensive, I believe that any group has the right to label themselves as they see fit but forcibly labeling another group is a form of oppressive control. Ergo, it is wrong to force genetic female to label themselves as cis but it is equally wrong for individuals who are not trans to use terms rejected by trans individuals to label said trans individuals.

Against this (purely stating my understanding of the rationale without commentary), calling genetic females simply 'women' could create the impression that trans women are somehow less 'genuine' women, in the same way that labeling White British individuals as simply 'British' while labeling BAME British as [ethnic denomination]-British would be exclusionary. Again, this is how it was explained to me by a trans rights activist, I'm not going taking a side on a clearly very contentious issue.

calling genetic females simply 'women' could create the impression that trans women are somehow less 'genuine' women

Well, they aren’t women, they are men, so they are not genuinely women.

Born females have every right to call themselves women and not surrender the term to men who identify as women. We Are Women. Males Are Not.

@ChiefClerkDrumknott I've always had conflicting views about this issue. On the one hand, I do agree that some individuals are using it to invalidate women and invade their spaces but I also have a hard time viewing all trans women as being party to this.

I wasn't even aware of the scale of the issue until the incident with Labour all-female shortlists (something I've always disagreed with on the basis of it being seemingly harmful to long term career momentum, highlighted by Conservatives having produced two female Prime Ministers and Labour having yet to even produce one female Leader of the Opposition).

No, all trans women aren't party to this. For one thing, there are many (often mature 'old school transsexuals') who know they are males and respect women's rights. They don't seem to find a need to call women anything other than 'women'.

On the one hand, I do agree that some individuals are using it to invalidate women and invade their spaces but I also have a hard time viewing all trans women as being party to this.

Agreed. I didn’t say all transwomen are party to this; I know not all are. All transwomen are male. If they were female they would be women, but they are not. I refuse to call born natal females anything other than women. We are not cis, We Are Women.

Very good point re Labour having fewer female Prime Ministers than the Conservatives. Interesting, isn’t it 🤔

Against this (purely stating my understanding of the rationale without commentary), calling genetic females simply 'women' could create the impression that trans women are somehow less 'genuine' women, in the same way that labeling White British individuals as simply 'British' while labeling BAME British as [ethnic denomination]-British would be exclusionary.

Nope. Because you're comparing different things!

British is an identity that all Brits share, regardless of skin colour. They are British because of their nationality. This is verifiable. Let's call them all cis-British.

If an American person "identifies as British," waves a Union Jack flag, and drinks tea, does this make them British? No. They are American. You can call them trans-British, if you like, but they are not actually British.

Now, within the category of British (based on nationality, the rules of which are clearly defined) you can then sub-divide. But, in order to do this you have to use a different trait altogether, like ethnic origin or religion. It would be unfair to say anyone is more or less a British national due to these unrelated characteristics.

However, British does not break down into cis-British and trans-British, because the second group isn't technically British.

Woman means adult human female.
Trans women are not, by definition, adult human females. Because if they met that definition, they wouldn't be "trans."
SO, there is no sensible, unifying definition of woman that includes trans women.
Now, you can sub-divide women by taking other characteristics into account, and categorize them by eye colour or height. That's fair. But you can't sub-divide them into women and trans women, because the second group doesn't meet the definitional criteria of the first.

If you are comparing this to race, you have to do it fairly. And bring up trans-racialism.
That would mean that you can be "African American" (actually ethnically so) or "trans-African American" (of another race but identifies as African American)
Transactivist language implies that these two groups are both equally "African American," but split into "cis" (i.e. actually African American) or trans (i.e. actually of another ethnic origin)

Does this make it clearer?

@ChiefClerkDrumknott Apologies for not being clear. I didn't mean to suggest that you specifically were. Regarding "all transwomen are male", I personally find a statement like that to be as enforcing of labels on another group as 'all genetic females are cis women' would be in the sense that you're forcing labels upon them (unless you are a trans woman/man). I appreciate that this carries with it a raft of practical issues that affect others but, on the pure basis of oppressive labeling, I equate the two.

Woman means adult human female. Trans women are not, by definition, adult human females. Because if they met that definition, they wouldn't be "trans

@heresyandwitchcraft Thank you for that explanation, I really appreciate it. I can't fully state why and I am not offering this as an argument against your explanation, merely an explanation of my feelings but using a purely biological definition to define 'woman' doesn't quite sit well with me. It seems somehow exclusionary.

That isn't to say it itsn't a credible definition or even that I disagree with you personally stating it, I just wanted to say the above because it makes me quite uncomfortable wrestling with it purely internally.

Apologies for not being clear. I didn't mean to suggest that you specifically were.
Coolio, that’s appreciated

Regarding "all transwomen are male", I personally find a statement like that to be as enforcing of labels on another group as 'all genetic females are cis women' would be in the sense that you're forcing labels upon them (unless you are a trans woman/man).

But all transwomen are of the male sex. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be trans, surely? Labels such as cis do not change the fact that natal females are women and transwomen are male.

I appreciate that this carries with it a raft of practical issues that affect others but, on the pure basis of oppressive labeling, I equate the two.

How is labelling a male as such oppressive? Transwomen are born male. No surgery, hormones, clothing, attitudes makes them female. Hence there is no need for cis. If you are of the female sex, you are a woman. Labels do not change this

using a purely biological definition to define 'woman' doesn't quite sit well with me. It seems somehow exclusionary

It is exclusionary. It excludes biological males from being women. It classes biological, natal females as women. This is not oppressive or bigoted, this is simply how it is. Males are not and can never be women, no matter how they identify.

using a purely biological definition to define 'woman' doesn't quite sit well with me. It seems somehow exclusionary.

Oh dear lord. Of course it's exclusionary! It excludes men.

Woman means adult human female. In the same way that mare means adult equine female.

You can't exclude someone from something that doesn't apply to them.

Woman is a description of reproductive sex.
That's all it is.

It can't be a 'judgement', unless you want to redefine what it means.

If you want the word woman to include some men, you need to redefine it. What's your new definition?

@ChiefClerkDrumknott Sorry again for not being clear. This is a very complicated issue to me and I'm trying my best to be as specific as possible. I don't believe cis is necessary term and I certainly don't think it's fair to be imposed, my initial post was only an attempt to pass on an explanation I'd previously read which, thanks to the posts here I now understand better. When I equated the two (referring to biological females as 'cis' and referring to trans women as men), I meant in the sense that they are both labels being externally enforced on one group by another.

Women and men are names for human females and human males. You can see why it's useful to have separate names for males and females can't you? I'm not sure how changing the definition of women from the biological definition to a gender identity would benefit women?

I thought they took a firm position on misgendering as inappropriate and banworthy. Calling women the c word is misgendering them.

Gronky
I appreciate that it can be uncomfortable. But anything else is intellectually dishonest. My position is that trans women are trans women, but I will drop the "trans" bit in normal speech to be polite, and treat them with the same respect I would any other person.
But it's not just about being nice.
It's a conceptual issue, and the truth has to be clear, especially when shaping laws.
Asking me to believe that trans women ARE women, i.e. that the two groups are actually one and the same and always have been?
No. That's where I draw the line.
I have much fewer issues with the people using the "old-school transsexual" logic. If the assertion is that trans women are technically male, but identify as the opposite sex, they lived as men, but have taken steps to now live as woman. That's something I can understand, even though I may have questions about what it means to "identify as a woman," because "woman" is not an internal identity to me.
But the new wave of trans activists actually say things like "my penis is female." Or, "I've always lived the female experience," despite being born a male. These assertions are simply... not true. The most vociferous activists basically tend to bully people into agreeing with them. It's making people engage in doublethink. We have to take some type of stand for common sense.
If the argument is trans women should be treated politely and not be harassed for their identity? I think most of us are on board.
If the argument is men = women? You're going to have to take me to room 101.

I can't fully state why and I am not offering this as an argument against your explanation, merely an explanation of my feelings but using a purely biological definition to define 'woman' doesn't quite sit well with me. It seems somehow exclusionary.

Yes, indeed. It is remarkably exactly like saying no to men, which as we all know is a hate crime.

heresyandwitchcraft

Excellent post.

This one time, after I had been growing another human in my torso for many months, it stayed there too long and ultimately got stuck in my birth (not blind) canal. At this point a doctor came in and dragged out the tiny human with forceps. The memory to this day of those cold hard metal things inside my vagina, scraping and tearing, makes it very clear to me that we all fucking know what the word woman means. No qualifier necessary. You can stick cis up your arse.