Autism survey and cisgender

[PerverseConverse]

I've just done an autism survey via autistic not weird and for the first time ever (apart from on here which is the only place I heard of it) have been asked if I'm cisgender or rather identify as cisgender. The other choices were LGBT+, neurodivergent or disabled. It's really pissed me off. Unreasonably so maybe, but I don't want to be identified as cisgender. The whole word sets my teeth on edge. I am a woman! An adult female human as I read on here. It's made me do cross that I didn't have the option of putting what I do actually identify as: female. Where did this whole cis thing come from? (I'm new to this board please be gentle! )

@MrGHardy that's what got me: the complete lack of sense to it. It was completely random and not really relevant to anything as they'd already asked the male/female/non-binary/other question. I'm not sure what sexuality has to do with autism....I didn't answer that section at all as it completely pissed me off. I've unliked the page now as I can't deal with that kind of bollocks. It hurts my brain. In fact I'd say the questionnaire wasn't very autism friendly at all in the way it was presented, thought out, and organised,

"I'm not sure what sexuality has to do with autism"

I am sure someone who knows more can supply a more detailed answer, but in short by now in some places, 1/3 children presenting to gender clinics are autistic girls apparently. I have seen some highlighting this problem on twitter and being very concerned about autistic children right now. I assume sexuality is similar. I am fuzzy on the reason behind this, so I don't want to give one that is wrong, I am sure someone else knows.

That last part is just pathetic, because yes, the way you describe it, it sounds not just not friendly, but actively autism unfriendly.

Well, at least it was a set of different options and you could put No to them all - I would have, as I don't 'identify' as any of those categories. Though wtf with 'identifying' as neurodivergent or disabled... aren't those things you get diagnosed as? and with the LGBT+ ... surely the LG and B are what you are not something you 'identify' as.

If 'they' are asking if you consider yourself cis gender, they should give you options not to be that too. It's logical.

" I repeat I am not offended by being labelled as cis. I definitely am offended by people trying to negate the trans experience and deny them their reality. If you were born with a brain and genitalia that match, good for you, but don’t assume everyone did."

What are your thoughts on this comment on the page? My brain is too tired to respond coherently but it appears to be a comment saying that the trans experience must not be negated (is more important?) but that it's ok to negate the experience of women. I could have got that arse about face so if anyone would like to correct me or whatever then please do as I'm new to navigating this subject.

You aren't wrong, PerverseConverse

I'd just give them their last sentence back. If you were somehow born with a gendered ladybrain to match your genitalia and make you cis, good for you, but don't assume that anyone else was!

I'd also take issue with 'their reality' because there is only one objective reality. It's true that there are trans people and some (but not all) of them suffer from dysphoria. It doesn't follow on from this that they literally have a gendered brain or soul that somehow ended up in the wrong sort of body. That is a belief. Disagreeing with it is on the same level as 'denying the reality' of someone who believes that everyone has an guardian angel watching over them. They're entitled to believe it. They're not entitled to insist that I have to believe it too, or pretend to, in case it hurts their feelings.

(I think that someone who genuinely believed in angels probably wouldn't be hurt by someone politely disagreeing. Someone who was trying to convince themselves of the idea, however...)

I think that if people were not so caught up in virtue signaling they would recognize that they are participating in an extreme othering campaign of Orwellian proportions.

"It’s human nature to categorise. You have plenty of other labels you embrace - woman, autistic or non-autistic, mother, lots of labels which, by definition, create boundaries. Why is this one any different?"

How can anyone argue with that kind of logic??

"I just read that awful Mumsnet post. The sheer volume of the transphobia and hatred shown makes me say I am a cis woman even when I don't have to. I refuse to be part of the problem.

Cis woman isn't used against me. It doesn't even mean I identify as girly. It just means I was born female and am still female."

How predictable 🙄

We tried embracing the pejorative 'bitch' back in the seventies and you can see what that got us.
Refusing to embrace the pejorative labels men call women when we tell them no seems a wise choice to me.

I've never been called transphobic before. And all because I object to my identity being defined by their identities.

"Cis woman isn't used against me. It doesn't even mean I identify as girly. It just means I was born female and am still female."

In that case, the word 'cis' applies to absolutely everyone.

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

In humans (and the overwhelming majority of species) it is not possible for a female to become male or a male to become female. All those born female are still female.

PerverseConverse I was upset the first time I was called transphobic, but honestly, we are being called transphobic for stating basic biological facts and not putting men's feelings above women's safety, privacy and dignity. Saying 'women do not have penises' is apparently transphobic. The word has been rendered completely meaningless.

Meanwhile, the actual transphobes - homophobic men who physically harm other men because they look feminine - don't get a fraction of the criticism that feminists do. It makes you think.

There are many definitions for cis knocking around.

How can people be asked if they are something if there is no agreement as to what it even means.

That's the situation with all of this though - we are told that terms mean "whatever they mean to you".

This is no way to gather meaningful statistics!

Well at least some people are told they can identify however they choose.

Strangely the one group this applies to is cunty women who are middle aged and have ??? around the whole thing - we are not allowed to pick our own identity and instead are TOLD that we are cis, and further that we are straight, white, middle class, privileged, prudish, etc etc

Funny isn't it that the exhortion that "Your identity is up to you! Don't let anyone else tell you who you are!" doesn't seem to apply to everyone

It's still giving me the rage. It's worse because it's women who are against women. It makes no sense. Are there similar discussions amongst men around the use of the word cis? Or are men actually allowed to be called men without needing a prefix?