Could you please help me form a coherent response

[EinsteinsArousedSausagesHCB]

Hello all,

I have a tendency to waffle so apologies in advance for the length.

I have lurked on the FWR boards for quite a while now. I mainly lurk as many of you are so very coherent and much more well informed than me. Therefore although I enjoy reading and learning from you all, I often have nothing substantial to add.

But I have learnt a lot of valuable things from you all. As such, today on another forum, I took the plunge and told all and sundry that I was gender critical and that I found the term 'cis' to be offensive. This was part of a larger discussion, I didn't just blurt it out willy nilly.

A TW then responded with a large and somewhat contradictory post. Surprisingly however, they ended with saying that they agreed with my points.

Probably naively on my part, I thanked them and told them that although I agreed with much of their post, I disagreed with some. But that it felt refreshing to have a coherent discussion on the topic without any preconceptions.

Typically the tone then turned, demanding to know what exactly I disagreed with as it's important that they are able to educate themselves but they of course will disregard anything hate filled. They sounded a little erratic at this point.

Now I know how I want to respond. Which is calmly and with actual proven facts. But I am unsure of the actual data. I know that I have read much of it countless times here, but for the life of me, I cannot remember which threads nor can I find exactly what I am looking for when using the search function.

So if I list some of the points that they made which I know are incorrect (and if I include a run down of what I know in brackets), I was hoping that perhaps some of you would be willing to provide me with a little more substance?

Paraphrasing;

1. Cis is not an offensive term it's just a descriptor. Also they have no idea where it originated but it is definitely not offensive. (Cis suggests that I am a subset of woman. I am not. I am a woman because my biology dictates so. My biological sex needs no label.)

2. TM have it easier than TW including an example of male privilege where the TM is promoted at work after transition whereas the TW is now overlooked. (I believe that this is incorrect as the TM is still at a biological disadvantage. Also the TM may have been offered the position on merit. However if it is as they say, the TM has had the social disadvantage of being a woman before transitioning. Whereas the TW would have had the advantage of male privilege up to transition.)

3. The old chestnut that TW are the most vulnerable of society, only to be trumped by the black TW who is the epitome of the most vulnerable in society. (I know that this is incorrect yet spouted a lot. I saw a wonderful post on here a couple of months back which wonderfully refuted this with facts and figures but I cannot find it!)

There is more, but I think just responding to these 3 points is enough. And for those of you still with me...

Don't get fooled into trying to refute every single point thats made. You will end up spending a lot of time and effort on something that is not going to change the other persons mind. They have Google,they could find the facts for themselves if they wanted to.

Risk assessments and safeguarding model absolute risk, not relative risk; which is why women only spaces are for women, not for ''the most vulnerable.''

Don't get fooled into trying to refute every single point thats made. You will end up spending a lot of time and effort on something that is not going to change the other persons mind.

Thank you, I know that you are correct. And that is why I initially gave a short acknowledgement of their point. In hindsight I probably should have thought it through more, withholding that I disagreed with some.

It's just difficult not to respond after the suggestions that any disagreement is likely coming from a hate filled place. I wonder if my silence and lack of response would then confirm that view for any readers who are on the fence.

But yes, I know that I am unlikely to change their viewpoint.

There was a brilliant thread last year about the futility of engaging with narcissists. Because we GC women are willing to engage with TRAs we answer point by point, but simply get dragged unwillingly and unwittingly into stoking, and this validating, the narcissists rage.

Not sure what to suggest, though.

I'm interested in further info on the cos point. I have seen it recently appearing in work policies and I wonder about the best way to challenge it.

Cis! Sorry auto correct

Don't knock yourself down - if my search skills were, as you put it, up to parr, I would have linked it for you!

're point 2: there is a study I'm aware of that showed indeed that amongst the cohort they collected data on, males who identified as trans experienced a career disruption, typically while transitioning. After that their career slowly rrcovered. And females who identified as trans experienced a career advance post transition. This was expressed as a percentage decrease or increase in their earnings.

However, the study only involved post-op transsexuals (of either sex) who legally changed sex. In one country. If I recall correctly, it did not differentiate between sectors and it did not directly compare the pre-transition earnings of males to the pre-transition earnings of females but, it did, most importantly, include a graph that post transition they essentially ended up in the same space. That's because transition seemed to eliminate the very well known workplace inequality between the sexes.

There are a number of reasons for this, like for instance that testosterone is a hell of a drug and the females in question typically pass as male, thus benefiting from the privilege that continues to accrue to males in our workplaces. Unfortunately the same is not true for males (or actually it is true, but testosterone in their case however, especially a testosterone fuelled puberty, often prevents an equally successful passing as female for post-op males).

So for a very small number of females who identify as trans, male privilege may indeed accrue to them post-op (but usually only if their sex is not known), while males who identify as trans are penalised for not conforming to society's preconceptions about male stereotypes and thus lose some but not all of their male privilege.

But that same male privilege typically helped these males progress faster than their female counterparts before they embarked on their transition, so any comparisons not taking this into account are disingenuous.

That study was done quite a while ago btw and it is highly likely this or something like it is what informed your discussion partner's point 2.

However, given that fewer than 5 percent of the trans community transition all the way to surgery, these findings are largely irrelevant to today's debate which is mostly concerned with people who identify as trans and who demand acceptance as the other sex without medically transitioning. And obvious females do not benefit from male privilege.

're point one: the term cis was originally used only in a strictly medical context in which a simple and easy way was sought to differentiate those who identify as trans from those who do not.

Volkmar Sigusch, a German psychiatrist and sexologost coined the term "Zissexuell" (i.e. cissexual) in 1991 because he reasoned that if there are transsexuals, there must of necessity also be cissexuals.

Interestingly, Sigusch's work on transsexualism includes such gems as categorically stating that no male person can ever understand what it means to be female (and vice versa).

In his understanding of the ideas behind transsexual and cissexual (he only coined the word cisgender in 1995), it's all very much about the absence or presence of dysphoria. And about the presumption that it is healthy to accept the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with one's sex.

Having just fallen into a rabbit hole of the texts written by the German sexologists who've invented much of this tripe, I'm actually astonished how openly regressive their theories are, even those written in the 2000s. They identify gender as socially constructed from the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with one or the other sex - just like radical feminists do - but posit that our sex dictates which stereotypes we should accept for ourselves, i.e. they are a type of biology essentialists.

I haven't got time to read deeper right now to what they think about those who are gender-non-conforming without identifying as trans, but judging from what I have read in these texts so far, it can only be one of two things - that's either unnatural and a different disorder from gender dysphoria or that's natural as a result of the softening of the dividing lines between what is considered appropriate for men or women in the Western world and thus one can pick and mix without being seen as disordered.

Cis is ascribing to the gender religion. I don't care to categorize people by their affiliation with sex based stereotypes.

Transmen have female bodies. They will have to reckon with that one day. Don't get sucked into ranking privilege. Just bring it back to sex classes, why are women as a class oppressed? Because they have long hair? - of the class that menstruates & gets pregnant means biological consequences, sometimes those consequences include oppression.

Don't get sucked in to the poor oppressed TW narrative, it's designed to put you on the back foot and defend yourself. Of course you don't support the (usually homophobic) oppression that some very poor TW receive. But feminism is for women and girls, not being the whole world's mama and fix everything.

Just wanted to add that I agree with everyone who points out you are under no obligation to respond nor to rebut point for point. Do it if you enjoy the challenge, or even just want to practice and hone your arguments. Otherwise just let it go

‘...disregard anything hate filled.’

You’re already into a loser, then, as this is a long standing and totally transparent tactic for avoiding answering difficult questions/ignoring inconvenient facts. You could present facts so solid they’re carved on tablets of stone but if they go against the ideological narrative it’s fingers in the ears and accusations of hatefulness, or my favourite ‘literal violence’. Your up against the Tinkerbell Effect, if they stop clapping and saying ‘I believe!’, they’ll cease to exist.

As everyone else has said and, on a much more basic level... It really should be enough to say "no, I don't want to be called that." Women already have the unnecessary miss, ms, mrs, all linked to marital status... I don't want another redundant label to categorise how I exist.

I wouldn't get too involved. It would be pointless and will only cause you anxiety.

Be brief; but polite:

"As with the request for the use of preferred pronouns when it comes to addressing someone with a trans identity, I'd rather not be referred to as 'cis'. It is not a label or descriptor I identify with. In fact I find it rather troubling and even offensive. I don't think it is acceptable to re- label other people, especially when it is not welcome or has not been requested, purely to suit one's own preferences or agenda. I'm sure you can empathise with this.

Beyond that I don't want to get drawn into a long debate right now. thanks!"

Cis originated as a chemistry analogy using isomers to represent trans people and cis people.

Both cis- and trans- originate from Latin geographical descriptors, basically meaning 'over here' or 'over there'

Thus, Cisalpine Gaul is on the same side of the Alps as the person naming it, ie the Romans. Transalpine Gaul is the other side of the Alps from Rome.

But note that it all depends on where you are. Technically speaking 'transatlantic' means London if you are in New York, and New York if you are in London. Cisatlantic might be Dublin if you are in London.

In other words, from a linguistic point of view, as soon as you become a trans person, all other trans people become cis (on the same side as you). All cis people become trans.

It is a very flawed brace of prefixes. I have no truck with it.

Surprisingly however, they ended with saying that they agreed with my points...

I would ask which ones and then build on that.

Wow, Einstein and your aroused sausages, you have more patience than I do. Just remember nobody has the right to others' labour particularly when explaining such a nuanced subject.

May I suggest you do some reading and make up your own mind?

Wow, thank you all, some really useful information here. And lots for me to digest. A big thank you to Charlie for the super informative posts. I know that must have taken plenty of your time and I truly appreciate that. Very interesting stuff.

After mulling it over, I think it is best to leave something clear for the non peaked to draw their own conclusions without tying myself in knots. As you say, I am not going to achieve anything here, and I haven't yet honed my skills, so I think directing a couple of questions back could be the way to go.

Just post a video of Alex Drummond claiming be a woman and ask if they agree with it.

Sealionsarenotlions you are correct and I hesitated before posting for that very reason. I can assure you that I have spent a very long time lurking and reading here.

However, I am new to debating this with others who appear to have a semblance of thought with an opposite view. I have only done so with family irl, and as they were unaware of a lot, particularly self-id and JK, it was not much of a debate.

As far as my aroused sausages, my current username was created as part of an older, inconsequential and light hearted thread. The OP was flummoxed that hot cross buns had remained DOTD for several days in a row and was attempting to knock it from the top spot.

@EinsteinsArousedSausagesHCB

Don't get fooled into trying to refute every single point thats made. You will end up spending a lot of time and effort on something that is not going to change the other persons mind.

Thank you, I know that you are correct. And that is why I initially gave a short acknowledgement of their point. In hindsight I probably should have thought it through more, withholding that I disagreed with some.

It's just difficult not to respond after the suggestions that any disagreement is likely coming from a hate filled place. I wonder if my silence and lack of response would then confirm that view for any readers who are on the fence.

But yes, I know that I am unlikely to change their viewpoint.

I do spend time on conversations like this - but not because I think I'll change their mind.

If I'm arguing with someone like this, I'm doing it for the lurkers. Every line the TRA feeds me with lies or half-truths is an opportunity to debunk it, so others can see this nonsense for what it is.

Sometimes people contact me by PM to thank me for arguing with the TRA, as they can't.

1) Cis is not an offensive term it's just a descriptor. Also they have no idea where it originated but it is definitely not offensive.

Cis isn't a neutral term - it doesn't just mean "not trans". It requires a belief in gender ideology - that there is such a thing as an inner gendered self.

As feminists see gender stereotypes as a tool that society used to subjugate women, we have a completely different definition of gender. By asking us to use cis, you're asking us to identify with our own oppression, and it implies women could simply identify out of sex-based oppression if we wanted to. This is offensive.

The image shows the difference between beliefs on gender between feminists, trans activists and conservatives (the TRAs often confuse us with conservatives).