How many women (or men) identify as cisgender?

[hallouminatus]

On another forum, I said "Most women don't identify as cisgender, and many feel that describing them as such is disrespectful". Someone has asked me for evidence of this. I think it's probably true, but I haven't seen any statistics or even estimates of numbers. I'm interested in any evidence or arguments which would either support or refute my statement.

I am a woman. I don't use tidy as anything. I'm just a woman.
People can fuck off applying that cis shit to me. I have the right to choose my own descriptors as much as anyone else and if they want me to use theirs, they can fucking well use mine!

Use tidy = identify.

I think my autocorrect is pissed.

I don’t think Drag Kings will ever generate the same interest because there isn’t the same sense that a woman in a suit is shocking.

I honestly don’t understand the difference between identifying as Cis and being a ‘Surrendered Wife’.

Someone who used to post here called it "compliant individual signalling" and I think that is very true. Please don't hurt me, I've used the right words. Do it to Julia instead.

@merrymouse And is there any other explanation than when a man dresses as a woman he lowers his status (also why transwomen are "brave" and "stunning") whereas when a woman apes a man she increases hers?

@Ereshkigalangcleg Hadn't seen that one before - noted for future use. And also - ouch.

The favoured Twitter term seems to be 'handmaids'.

And is there any other explanation than when a man dresses as a woman he lowers his status (also why transwomen are "brave" and "stunning") whereas when a woman apes a man she increases hers?

No - I can’t think of any other reason.

I find it offensive and annoying.

Gender is a construct. Cis is unnecessary and offensive.

I identify as cisgender by definition.

You identify with sexist stereotypes about women?

I learned about cis-trans isomerism a million years ago when first studying organic chemistry, and that has where my interest in those prefixes has remained.

I was born a girl and will die as an adult human female - a woman. Nothing more need be applied to my status in this world, and any attempt to cram me into a subset of women will be refused utterly.

I identify as cisgender by definition. What is that definition, and why do you identify within that definition?

I didn't say it was?

you understand that studies have shown that being trans is supported by mainstream science, right? Like, trans women's brains match female brains more than male brains, and vice versa with trans men? No one is trying to argue that biological sex isn't real, it's just only a part of the story for some people...

No, that's a misunderstanding of the studies, begaydocrime. There are several studies that sought to examine whether the brains of female-to-male and male-to-female transsexuals were closer to the sex they identified as than their own. (These studies looked at the minute structural differences between the brains of male and female people.)

They didn't show that. They did show that transsexuals were closer to the opposite sex than people of the same sex, but they remained closer to the latter than the former.

Just to illustrate, an example below (which represents the way this worked, not the actual results).

Draw a line. Label one end with 1, the other with 10.

Position 1 is the male control group and position 10 is the female control group. These studies found that male-to-female transsexuals would be located between 1 and 3, while female-to-male transsexuals would be located between position 10 and 8, i.e. each transsexual group is positioned closer to their own than the opposite sex. And that means they did not match the opposite sex more than their own.

Furthermore, the studies I looked into all featured homosexual transsexuals who had medically transitioned by taking cross-sex hormones at the very least. This presents two problems as to whether the observed position of the transsexual group was a result of:

1. the subjects' homosexuality and/or
2. the subjects' use of cross-sex hormones

There is considerable overlap in what comparative neurological studies show that look into differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual people and those looking into possible differences in the brains of transsexuals. That overlap needs to be carefully examined before any observed difference can be attributed to either transsexualism or homosexuality.

There are also studies that have shown that in those suffering from gender dysphoria, there is an area of the brain that is similarly affected to the brains of people with eating disorders and other body dysmorphia. That area of the brain governs perception of the self, and of course it makes sense that someone who wishes to have the body of the opposite sex would have that region be particularly active.

I don't doubt that neuroscience will deliver some much needed answers in this field. In the meantime, it's always good to read the actual papers and check the methodology used and the limitations the authors themselves place on their results.

I identify as cisgender by definition.

It doesn't have a genuine definition. It's a way of transwomen appropriating womanhood, then claiming adult human females are just a subset of women. That is the only reason the term "cisgender" exists and it is based on false premises because actually transwomen are male.

I don't identify with anything that would suggest I am merely a subset of my sex. I AM woman

Within categories that include males and females of all ages, it makes sense to use descriptors in front of "woman." Examples:
Scandinavian woman
Tall woman
middle-age woman
(When I was a child) girl
(When I was an infant) baby girl

What's so interesting about this is people being told simultaneously that everyone has a right to "self-identify" and women being told that they must accept a weird, made up new word for being female.

It seems to be aimed at validating the made up idea of gender by forcing women to subscribe to one when most women seem to want nothing to do with these stereotypes. It's coercive and also quite childish and transparent.

@Delphinium20

I don't identify with anything that would suggest I am merely a subset of my sex. I AM woman

Within categories that include males and females of all ages, it makes sense to use descriptors in front of "woman." Examples:
Scandinavian woman
Tall woman
middle-age woman
(When I was a child) girl
(When I was an infant) baby girl

Straw man.

Those subsets of women are women because they are all of the female sex. You can't be a subset of a group which you don't belong to in the first place. Basic biology. A venn diagram may help you to visualise it if you are finding it difficult to grasp.

I don't identify as anything.

I am a woman.

If something terrible happens to me & all that is left can be identified by bone structure, they will identify me as a woman.
If they have to use DNA because there isn't enough of me left to do it any other way they will still identify my remains as those of a woman.

This is true for every woman ever on the planet.
Doesn't matter what race they are, what age they are, what skin colour they have, what language they speak, what religion they have, who they want to have sex with, what surgery they have or what drugs they take.
Nothing changes the truth.

I am a woman. This is not an identity, it is a fact.
I am female. This is not an identity, it is a fact.

I have never met a woman who regards being called Cis as something that is acceptable.

Group A (mainly TRAs) telling group B (women) that they are no longer group B, but that group A is now the "new" group B and the original group B's are merely substandard members... does that sound like something an underrepresented, oppressed minority would do? Or does it sound more like colonization?

You identify with sexist stereotypes about women?

What is that definition, and why do you identify within that definition?

It doesn't have a genuine definition…

I consider trans identities valid, am aware that's not the consensus here, and am unconvinced by the counterpoints I've read.

Given this, I appreciate the invitation to discuss it further, but I'd prefer to state my opinion politely and leave it there out of respect for each other's time.

I consider trans identities valid, am aware that's not the consensus here, and am unconvinced by the counterpoints I've read

Noone is saying trans identities are not valid. Clearly they are valid and real. Stating biological facts, and the truth, that sex is real and matters, does not make trans people any less valid or real. Stating the truth doesn't make them vanish. Unless you think a lie should be upheld in order to mask the truth of what it is to be transgender. As they will suddenly vanish like a puff of smoke if people realise that sex is binary. That's pretty transphobic tbh if you think their whole existence needs to be based on a lie that must never be revealed.

I consider trans identities valid

I don’t think an individual identity can be valid or invalid. We all have value simply because we are human. I disagree with the idea that identities (as opposed to sex) need to be classified. I think formally classifying people as feminine and masculine is regressive, sexist and actively harmful.

I respect your desire to avoid time wasting, but as you cannot explain what ‘Cis’ means, I don’t know why you wasted time posting in the first place.

It wasn’t ‘I am cis woman hear me roar.’

Just woman or female is fine. I’m. Comfortable with that.

I object to someone calling me anything other than that just because they are uncomfortable about the identity they have chosen.

I had no choice to be a woman and I’m fine with it.

You do you and leave me be.

To identify as cis suggests and by its very use agrees there is another type of woman. Ie a man who has become a woman as an example. That is the problem for many.