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.

But both imply identification with cultural and social expectations of a gender. This is the part that many (most?) people on this forum find mystifying.

YY. I reject it all. Let's not reify the oppressive social construct that is "gender".

Cis is the antonym of trans.

So if you believe transwomen are female, do you also believe those you call "cis women" are male?

Deeply offensive to me too

Most women won’t have a clue what cis means. My daughter says cis is now being used as an insult along with “het”
I am a woman. Period.

DH misguidedly referred to me as a cis woman a while ago. He'd just come across it and didn't really know what it meant or what he was saying, to be fair. But let's just say, he won't ever say that to me again. I explained, probably not as calmly as I could've done, that I'm a woman and that no prefix is necessary. He got my point, I'm pleased to say.

I don't identify as anything specifically, but I have no problem with anyone describing me as Cis, because I've only ever seen it used when the discussion is in relation to Trans issues, and in that context I don't view it as much different to being described as 'natal' or 'biological'. There are some occasions where having very specific are important and absolutely necessary for the purpose of clarity, but having said that, I can't imagine ever being offended by being described as Cis regardless of the context.

specific terms*

If less than 1% of the population is granted or assumes so much privilege that it is allowed to redefine the status of 99% of the population in relation to the 1%, what sort of society would that be?

Feudal?

Theocracy?

Totalitarian?

The big problem is that no one has ever asked.

Trans people have a sense of internal gender obviously.

And that has been extrapolated to the whole population.

But no one has asked the whole population if this is a thing.

For me it's not something in my identity at all. The things that define me are not to do with that.

I became a feminist from very young. Before i knew the word feminist. Because I was a person and had all this stuff put on me because I was female.

If the question was asked properly. Most people, I would guess, do not have gender/ sex as as thing.

According to the stonewall definitions I am trans. But somehow I suspect I'm not allowed to be/ not the right sort of trans.

There has been some research into whether people who are “normative” (term used in the studies) consider themselves to identify to a greater or lesser degree “as a man” (if female) or “as a woman” (if male).

Depending on the study, IIRC, between 35 - 40% of subjects did not “feel” 100% “as a woman” (females) or “as a man” (males) 100% of the time.

Some trans activist takes on this are that either:

a) even fleeting, partial “feeling as if the opposite sex” means that a person is trans so there are lots more trans people around than people realise.

(However, this goes completely counter to the usual claims by trans activists that anyone who goes the whole hog but then detransitions was never really trans in the first place.)

b) there is no clear distinction between “trans” and “cis”

(So, arguably, neither descriptor makes much sense.)

From the “Crossdreamers” website:

The Multi-Gender Identity Questionnaire

The study is based on what they call the Multi-Gender Identity Questionnaire (Multi-GIQ). The Multi-GIQ includes a lot of variables relevant to gender identity, including:

“feeling-as-a-woman”
“feeling- as-a-man”
“feeling-as-both-genders”
“feeling-as-neither-gender”
“satisfied-being-a-woman/man”
“wish-to-be-a-man/woman”
“dislike-my-body-due-to-its-female/male-form”
“wish-to-have-the-body-of-the-other-sex”

To give you two examples of the type of questions the respondents were given:

In the past 12 months, have you had the wish or desire to be a man

Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never, Not relevant

In the past 12 months, have you wished you had the body of the “other” sex?

Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never

From

”More than one third of non-transgender people have had crossgender dreams and fantasies”
Jan 13th 2019

www.crossdreamers.com/2019/01/more-than-one-third-of-non-transgender.html

The author has also commented on the validity of the study given the population sampled:

”Is it true that 1/3 of non-transgender people fantasize about being the other sex?”

crossdreamers.blogspot.com/2019/01/is-it-true-that-13-of-non-transgender.html

There are links to the original research in the references for both articles.

Cis is grossly offensive. I'm a woman (adult human female) and I'm also a lesbian (adult human female sexually attracted to other adult human females).

I've only ever seen it used when the discussion is in relation to Trans issues, and in that context I don't view it as much different to being described as 'natal' or 'biological'.

It is very different.

Natal and biological are objective terms that have nothing to do with identity or ideology. It’s just language used to determine sex.

‘Trans’ is a vague word that includes a man in a dress (cross dressing) but not a woman wearing men’s jeans (practical).

It includes a gender conforming person who identifies as non binary if they believe that other people have binary genders. It does not include a gender non conforming person who doesn’t believe in gender.

Unpack the logic.

Person A: I reject these labels and words, they do not match my internal sense of self, and I relate to these words I choose. Please use those words for me which value my sense of self and respect my feelings.

Person B: Ok

Person A: I however label you with this word. You must call yourself that at all times too.

Person B: But I don't relate to that word? I relate to other words and beliefs and my choice of language is this, not the word you're sticking on me. Actually that word makes me really uncomfortable and jars with my own beliefs.

Person A: That does not matter.

Person B: You just asked me to not label you and use only the words you choose because of valuing your sense of self and your feelings, and I said yes fine, so - you get to choose and I don't? Your sense of self and your feelings matter but mine don't? And you expect me to provide you with the service of your chosen words but you're not extending any of the same basic respect back to me in return?

Person A: Name calling, shaming, rage unless you comply.

I also do not identify as cis and find it massively offensive. I am a women.

Natal and biological are objective terms that have nothing to do with identity or ideology. It’s just language used to determine sex

Which is more or less how I view 'Cis', and why I don't find it in any way offensive.

As I said before the context is vital. It's commonly used to donate 'a woman who is not a transwoman', which applies to me, describes me, and does nothing to offend me. I accept the argument that just 'woman' also does that perfectly well, but again, I don't find it in any way offensive for someone to make it clear when they are referring to biological women and not transwomen, and I'm not particularly fussy about which term they use to do that.

When it's in a specific scenario whereby the intended audience might believe they are also including transwomen in their use of 'woman', then I view 'woman' as insufficiently clear, and 'cis' as interchangeable with 'biological', 'natal', etc. It's the intent that's important, and if it communicates meaning succinctly then I have no issue with it.

FWIW, I view 'Cis man' exactly the same way, i.e. a perfectly appropriate way to ensure you are talking very specifically about biological males and not including transmen

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Natal and biological are objective terms that have nothing to do with identity or ideology. It’s just language used to determine sex

Which is more or less how I view 'Cis', and why I don't find it in any way offensive.

As I said before the context is vital. It's commonly used to donate 'a woman who is not a transwoman', which applies to me, describes me, and does nothing to offend me. I accept the argument that just 'woman' also does that perfectly well, but again, I don't find it in any way offensive for someone to make it clear when they are referring to biological women and not transwomen, and I'm not particularly fussy about which term they use to do that.

When it's in a specific scenario whereby the intended audience might believe they are also including transwomen in their use of 'woman', then I view 'woman' as insufficiently clear, and 'cis' as interchangeable with 'biological', 'natal', etc. It's the intent that's important, and if it communicates meaning succinctly then I have no issue with it.

I assume then that you believe transwomen are in fact women? That Woman is a main heading, and cis woman and transwoman are sub sets of types of woman? Is Black woman also a sub set of Woman? Disabled woman? See, that’s why many women object to the term cis. It implies a subset of Woman. That’s also why many transwomen use it. Because they believe they are women.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

FWIW, I view 'Cis man' exactly the same way, i.e. a perfectly appropriate way to ensure you are talking very specifically about biological males and not including transmen

There’s a word that’s recognisable worldwide for biological males. It’s men.

I view 'woman' as insufficiently clear, and 'cis' as interchangeable with 'biological', 'natal', etc. It's the intent that's important, and if it communicates meaning succinctly then I have no issue with it.

‘natal’ includes trans men and trans women so is very much not interchangeable with ‘Cis’.

I can’t think of any situation where the context wouldn’t make it clear that the word ‘woman’ refers to sex.

I don’t understand why it is a good idea to suggest that talking about sex is offensive. It’s just a medical classification like blood type, but with far more important consequences.

On the other hand, it seems easy to understand why ‘Cis’ which specifically refers to restrictive social expectations is offensive, particularly in the context of women.

I view 'woman' as insufficiently clear, and 'cis' as interchangeable with 'biological', 'natal', etc. It's the intent that's important, and if it communicates meaning succinctly then I have no issue with it.

I couldn’t be more at odds with this if I tried.

Woman is sex based.

Sex based - woman is YY chromosomes

It’s as scientific and definitive as it gets

Forcing a name on an individual or a group of people has in the past been used by oppressors to subjugate others. Brave New World ain't it.

I don’t object to being in a subset. I’m in lots of subsets. The problem is that I need the full ‘set’ definition to be available to protect my rights and the services I need.

I don’t need rights and services because of gender, I need them because of sex. A definition that refers to gender is useless.

I can’t remember the last time I used a single sex space. I still need equality law and sex specific medical services.

The last few months have shown how easy it is to lose those things, not because the male dominated government hates women, but because they forget they exist.

It's the intent that's important

Yes. Very much so.

I have absolutely no issue with any woman labelling herself in any way she so wishes. Your choice, I'll respect it. I also won't use words and labels for you that you have not chosen, do not agree with or identify with.

Please extend me the same respect.

That's it. That's all.

See, that’s why many women object to the term cis. It implies a subset of Woman. That’s also why many transwomen use it. Because they believe they are women

I have no objection to other women finding the term offensive, as I complete understand their objection to it. It's just not an objection I share because I've not personally encountered the use of the term 'cis' in any scenario where it wasn't being used to make it emphatically clear that the user was referring specifically to biological women and not including transwomen.

I suspect this is probably due to my line of work, where it's pretty much an accepted term because we have to quite often refer to groups using exclusionary language. I don't really have any thoughts on the 'transwomen are women' question so can't really answer that for you, all I can do is try to explain why I don't, personally, find it offensive even though I do understand why other do, pretty much for the reasons you've already outlined.

There’s a word that’s recognisable worldwide for biological males. It’s men

As above, if I was to refer to 'men' in my workplace, people would assume I'm including transmen in that, regardless of my own thoughts on whether or not TWAT/TMAM etc. This is exactly why 'cis' has no offensive connotations for me.

I can’t think of any situation where the context wouldn’t make it clear that the word ‘woman’ refers to sex

I encounter them constantly at work. It's one of the biggest issues when you spend a lot of time discussing other groups that you are not part of yourself, or have little commonality with. How to describe them, how to advocate for them, and unfortunately, how to 'label' them. As much as I dislike labels for a myriad of reasons, I do find that they are often necessary and do fulfil a purpose when it comes to clear communication.