Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

AMA Trans thread got me thinking about the terms cis/trans...

67 replies

StopThePlanet · 22/04/2019 17:34

You'd think 'cis' and 'trans' would both be offensive to trans individuals that use Latin origins as base definitions.

For reference, here are the definitions: Latin: cis = "this side of" and tra = "the other side of/across from". This would denote that 'cis' people are on one side and trans people are fully transitioned and on the other side of their biological sex (which is incorrect as changing gender does not equal changing sex and most trans people do not fully transition - as per stats released by UK, US, et al).

Do trans individuals want to be looked at and see themselves as being on the other side of/across from 99%+ of the Earth's population?

I doubt it.

The more logical, more kind, and rational perspective would be:

(a) Cis is redundant - an unnecessary prefix as it defines a default i.e. humans are sexually dimorphic thus... men are male and women are female based on biological sex regardless of gender presentation.

(b) Trans is a great prefix as it denotes a spectrum of variants on default i.e. humans are sexually dimorphic but some feel that their biological sex is mismatched with their sense/feel of their desired/perceived sex thus transmen are females that sense/feel like what they believe it is to be male and transwomen are males that sense/feel like what they believe it is to be female. Trans people are forever trans (unless they desist) even after full transition as it is scientifically impossible to convert to the sex opposite of birth.

How can I refine/condense these statements to be more mentally accessible to those that are towing the TWAW/TMAM narrative? Looking to have thoughtful and respectful conversations with the aforementioned - please help!!!

OP posts:
LarryGreysonsDoor · 23/04/2019 13:45

Nope - the dictionary definition of 'woman' is a hate speech now.
I wish I was joking.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 23/04/2019 14:58

I always identified as a hateful old bag anyway

StopThePlanet · 23/04/2019 20:42

Ok, this is going to be crazy long - strap in, here we go down my 'thought rabbit hole'.

Post (1/2)

2BthatUnnoticed

Do not let this “cis is from Latin, you can’t be offended!” shit pass.

100% on board with you, 'cis' is offensive to those of us that can see through all of the rhetoric.

I have dark skin and was called “Negro” (among other things) as a child. Negro is from Latin too.

Exactly! I want to start this rant by expressing my disgust/sadness that you were called such things and have experienced prejudice through words and incorrect societal assumptions about you based on your sex and the color of your skin. Beyond oppression and stereotypes of those distinct classes you have undoubtedly experienced judgement based on a plethora of negative stereotypes for being a dark-skinned girl and now dark-skinned woman.

From what I have read and been told by dark-skinned elders, in the US 'negro' was considered a term of respect and preferred by many dark-skinned Americans above its predecessors (colored, slurs, et al) until the '70s. It became a hateful epithet from that point forward. Since I was born in the '70s I've never heard it or any variation/derivative used as a respectful term (except when speaking to dark-skinned elders, light-skinned elders have said it to me in a derogatory way as a quiet/encrypted way to say a slur).

As we know niger (Latin) is the root of negro in Spanish and Portuguese meaning the color black. In French it became negre and negress to hatefully describe dark-skinned peoples and was obviously used as a slur (French for the color black is noir). English ran with niger and we know where that led.

I don't like using 'black' (unlucky, bad, villain, hell, moniker of oppression) to describe dark-skinned people and using 'white' (fortunate, good, hero, heaven, moniker of privilege) for light-skinned people. Some US dark-skinned people share a common ancestry/history but not all, same goes for light-skinned people. Calling all dark-skinned or 'black' people in the US African-American is an insult to the diversity of the group of people with skin termed 'black'. 'White' Americans as well as other light-skinned Americans in attempts to be respectful tend to use African-American as they are at a loss for what is appropriate and correct in describing dark-skinned people.

'Othering' is pervasive, no one is safe, regardless of the continent from which your ancestry hails and regardless of the color of your skin. If you are without power/influence and wealth you will likely experience some level of oppression.

Being dark-skinned in today's US (my best point of reference) comes with some light-skinned people preaching about your equality as if affirmative action wiped away more than two centuries' worth of oppression, abuse, and dehumanization. Efforts to close the gap of imbalance (affirmative action, desegregation, Title VI, Title VII) don't magically create equality of existence - it's completely irrational and illogical.

While dark-skinned people of the US have reclaimed 'black' some 'white' people still use it to signify 'other' or an alternative to the negative derivatives of niger to veil their racism. Describing dark-skinned people as 'black' does not describe a universal race/culture/ethnicity beyond color-based oppression of people with dark skin. Not all (not even most) dark-skinned people are from Africa (some 'white' Americans are dismissive of this - as they see all 'black people' as the same).

Describing dark-skinned people in the US as a group can be difficult without either (1) using 'black' which I believe is negative (see above) or (2) applying incorrect labels i.e. African-American, or (3) dark-skinned (depending on audience perspective) can mean African, Middle Eastern, or Columbian (et al) people whatever the audience associates with the term.

It means a lot to me that my language is clear, recognizes historical as well as current oppression, and is respectful to the group which I am describing. How I am perceived is much less important then how my message is received.

Describing individuals is easy - I describe myself as having medium tone olive skin and one of my friends as having dark tone caramel skin and another as fair tone peach skin. Because in those descriptions I am describing one's appearance not ethnicity/race, and if ethnicity comes up I may or may not (in most cases) know the person's origins/ancestry.

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 23/04/2019 20:46

Post (2/2)

2BthatUnnoticed

“Cis” is dehumanising - it masses 7.3 billion people (many desperately poor) into an amorphous group with “privilege” over a tiny number of mostly white, middle class people in rich countries.

So true! I feel similarly about 'black' as an adjective to describe people. True to roots, 'niger' (color black) and 'cis' (this side of) aren't necessarily negative but words evolve (e.g. fagot as a bundle of sticks/wood became faggot a slur against women/children and further evolved to be a slur against male homosexuals).

At the rate language is evolving (devolving if you prefer) if we agree to 'cis' the standalone words we use to describe ourselves as females will be relegated to slurs and accepted as such (as you are aware they are beginning to be used this way). We'll ultimately lose the rights to define or describe ourselves without 'cis' as a prefix and face prosecution.

'White people' stripped 'black people' of their words to describe themselves, we can't let this happen again by allowing men to strip women of our words.

The sole function of “cis” is to centre the trans community as oppressed, so that their views must override those of the other 7.3 billion people when there is any conflict.

It certainly appears that way.

I did not accept Negro and I will never accept cis.

We can't let 'cis' become a WMD for men in the dehumanization of women and erasure of our sex-based rights as they frolic about openly appropriating women's oppression.

They want to remove the small shreds of comfort we have gained in society as women - as individuals we have fewer resources but as a group we are formidable. We must raise our voices, push through the lines of power and wealth we have mostly been excluded from, and pull the women who do have power and wealth to our perspective. For us for the female sex because we deserve to be heard - not 'othered' - and refuse to be redefined by our oppressors. We must hold strong onto our words (woman, girl, female, uterus, vagina, et al) and reject the redefining of who we are through the lens of men's desires to reduce us to menstruators/gestators.

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 23/04/2019 20:54

Hey ya'll - as usual my posts are insanely long. However, we are just discussing big topics and I believe that defining roots of words (as well as clarifications to ensure clear communication) and their evolution is necessary.

I write more on this board than I probably should but gaining your insights into how my words are received is incredibly important for my pending projects (for the good fight).

I so appreciate all of your participation; all feedback is appreciated.

I would like to read more if you are inclined to share more. Grin

OP posts:
Justhadathought · 23/04/2019 21:05

Women don't require a qualifier...but trans men/people do. Trans is fine. It acknowledges some kind of transition, whilst also acknowledging that they are not actually women. The problem for the radical trans activists is that want to force a situation where everybody has to accept them as 'real' women - which they are not. A woman is an adult human female.

Justhadathought · 23/04/2019 21:09

It means a lot to me that my language is clear, recognizes historical as well as current oppression, and is respectful to the group which I am describing. How I am perceived is much less important then how my message is received.

I'm honestly struggling to read your posts, and not find them overly complex and oblique. What is it that you really want to say/convey - in simple terms?

Justhadathought · 23/04/2019 21:13

If you can't tell that I am a 'cis' prohibitionist by my original post I wonder if I have found the right words to communicate these thoughts?

I think the problem is that you are using too many words. Without wanting or meaning to be rude, the posts do come across as something from a lecture on inter-sectionality. So dense that nobody really understands what it is you are talking about.

Justhadathought · 23/04/2019 21:16

I'm looking to apply definitions that work within the global context of critical thought in an attempt to divorce sex from gender without going deep GC explanation

I think it is possible to deliver a gender critical delivery that is not aggressive or dismissive in style - just honest and well reasoned. I think we all have to mean what we say. It sounds as if you are stuck in in between a rock and a hard place, bjt out of your own doing -and i'm not sure it is going to get you very far with anyone.

Justhadathought · 23/04/2019 21:17

I think it is possible to deliver a gender critical analysis......

Justhadathought · 23/04/2019 21:20

GC theory can be complicated for some to understand especially with blinders on (regardless of politics and/or religion or gender perspective).

I would honestly say that GC' theory' is pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It is Queer Theory and contemporary trans ideology that is dense and irrational.

StopThePlanet · 23/04/2019 22:28

Justhadathought

Women don't require a qualifier...but trans men/people do. Trans is fine. It acknowledges some kind of transition, whilst also acknowledging that they are not actually women...

I agree with everything you said there, however, I'm attempting to appeal to a wider audience. I'm looking to ease people to our side without running them off. Merely stating that women don't need a qualifier and trans people do is not going to get me far in discourse with those I am seeking to engage. I tried your suggested tactic with my neighbor and others and have been met with blank looks. I sat down again with my neighbor approaching the subject from a different yet similar angle to what I have done here - she ended up listening and has begun to research GC perspectives.

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 23/04/2019 23:45

Justhadathought

I'm honestly struggling to read your posts, and not find them overly complex and oblique.

Argh! That is what I am trying to avoid.

What is it that you really want to say/convey - in simple terms?

(1) TWAW/TMAM is false
(2) Gender isn't relevant in relation to sex-based protections
(3) 'Cis' is a slur, define it, destroy it
(4) Sex is immutable
(5) Women are women and not the same as TW - equating any woman with TW and using race/fertility as 'leverage' is hate against women

And more but that is the simplest way I can put it at this moment.

I'm not trying to complicate or be oblique.

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 24/04/2019 02:38

Justhadathought

I think the problem is that you are using too many words.

Yeah I am verbose that's true.

Without wanting or meaning to be rude, the posts do come across as something from a lecture on inter-sectionality. So dense that nobody really understands what it is you are talking about.

Ouch, noted - thanks for qualifying that your criticism is constructive. I'm assuming that you are not referring to my OP but to the rant above (I see what you are saying). If you are referring to OP as well please enlighten me as to what about OP reads as intersectional (I can't see your point on this yet).

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 24/04/2019 02:50

Justhadathought

I think it is possible to deliver a gender critical delivery that is not aggressive or dismissive in style - just honest and well reasoned.

I agree yet have been met with icy stares and conversation shutdown as soon as I say gender is a social construct. I'm trying to work around this.

I think we all have to mean what we say.

I do mean what I say, I think I said too much (as you mentioned) and I let myself go on a rant which took away from the intent of the thread.

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 24/04/2019 02:53

@Justhadathought

Just in case you don't revisit this thread, I @ you to thank you for your constructive criticism. Grin

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 24/04/2019 02:55

LordProf

I always identified as a hateful old bag anyway

Thanks for the laugh! Grin

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread