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.

There is no right or service that a ‘Cis’ women would cease to need if they no longer identified as ‘Cis’.

No because I don’t identify into my oppression. I can’t change my biological destiny but I don’t have to identify into a lifetime of plucking, waxing, spending fortunes on pointless accoutrements and crippling myself in unsuitable shoes just to appease some men who fetishise that.

Cis is a fringe thing. It’s a signal that you are going along with trans ideology.

Most of the population isn’t really paying any attention. If the results of this become frightening, degrading or intrusive enough, then you will see kick back.

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.

As a lesbian woman, I feel about the same way in being labelled 'cis' for other people's use as I do about being labelled 'dyke'. Just words. Clear meaning. Just a derogatory and oppressive one.

Please don't apply words to people without their consent. If everyone respects that equally, there's no problem.

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.

Could you give an example?

If you think ‘Cis’ is equivalent with ‘natal’, I am concerned that you don’t understand what the terms mean.

There's not much to add to this!
I'm a woman. There's only one type. If you call me "cis" I'll call you out on it. Do it a second time and I'll ignore you, and I won't care who you are or where I am when I do so.
If you persist despite being ignored the chances are that I'll tell you to fuck off (and then carry on ignoring you).

If anyone had the gall to identify me as a ‘CIS’ female then they’d get the sharp end of my tongue. I’m happy to use the pronoun that someone else chooses (if they’re trans for example) but I will not have my own identity eradicated by someone else who has no right to do so.

And if you are regularly using ‘Cis’ at work, I think you are not comprehending why it is so offensive to imply that an oppressed group identifies with the reasons used to justify oppression.

XDownwiththissortofthingX What line of work are you in?

No and I find the term "cis", when used in the context of talking about sex, insulting.

There is no right or service that a ‘Cis’ women would cease to need if they no longer identified as ‘Cis’

Perhaps not, but there are scenario regarding best practice that absolutely require some consideration given to whether what is appropriate with regard to biological women is also appropriate for transwomen. As an organisation we can not run the risk of subjecting someone to a completely inappropriate process, referral, service etc, so there is absolutely a need to differentiate between certain groups. I fully agree that there's a debate to have about the terms of reference, but as things stand, use of 'cis' makes things explicit whereas 'woman' would not. My concern in this particular scenario is ensuring we discharge our duty of care appropriately, so until such time that there's an agreed change to an alternative term that fulfils the same function and does not leave any room for misinterpretation, then I think 'cis' is going to stay around.

In most written forms the differentiation is expressed by directly referencing 'transwomen, transmen' etc etc. Now I have no argument with suggesting that it should be possible to simply do the same in spoken discussions, but we're in a place whereby if I verbally refer to 'men', or 'women', there will be people in my audience who will likely assume I'm including transmen/transwomen, so for the sake of expediency using 'cis' gets the point across succinctly and clearly when we're talking about groups comprising only of biological males and females and excluding trans individuals.

This is Earl Ferrers explaining why women should not be made life peers in 1957. This is gender.

“If one looks at a cross-section of women already in Parliament I do not feel that one could say that they are an exciting example of the attractiveness of the opposite sex. I believe that there are certain duties and certain responsibilities which nature and custom have decreed men are more fitted to take on ; and some responsibilities which nature and custom have decreed women should take on. It is generally accepted that the man should bear the major responsibility in life.”

Earl Ferrers was a hereditary peer and remained in the House of Lords until 2012. Women are still not able to inherit hereditary peerages.

I can only assume that people who happily use ‘Cis’ are either equally sexist, or have the privilege of never having thought much about gender or its impact on women’s rights.

I can only assume that people who happily use ‘Cis’ are either equally sexist, or have the privilege of never having thought much about gender or its impact on women’s rights

Yep.

Please don't apply words to people without their consent. If everyone respects that equally, there's no problem

This is the crux of what I was getting at when I said that it's an issue we run into all the time, i.e. how exactly do you refer to specific demographics when you either can not canvas them en masse to establish an acceptable collective noun, or, receive an indication from a proportion of that group that one particular term is preferred, and simultaneously a response from another proportion of that group that they find the same term offensive?

It does not remove the requirement to refer to that group, so what do you do?

It's not exclusive to terms relation to sex and/or gender, in fact, those are just the tip of the iceberg. It's been a long-standing sore point and source of ire as far back as my organisation has existed, so at least the 1970's. Just what language do you use to refer to a group, when nobody, including that group themselves, can agree on an a universally accepted term.

Perhaps not, but there are scenario regarding best practice that absolutely require some consideration given to whether what is appropriate with regard to biological women is also appropriate for transwomen.

Like what? Why would you exclude men from these scenarios?

so for the sake of expediency using 'cis' gets the point across succinctly and clearly when we're talking about groups comprising only of biological males and females and excluding trans individuals.

If you mean ‘non-trans’ why not say that? Why use an explicitly offensive word? Having said that, the definition of trans is so vague, I don’t know how you would define ‘non-trans’. This leads me back to my first point - when do you need to classify anyone by gender?

Why not canvas them en masse? At what point is any consultation going to be held on this with the 99% of the population affected but not surveyed?

Frankly the whole language shift and redefinition of sex based terms in law should go to a referendum, it is that massive and fundamental a shift with that much impact.

But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't dream of labelling your trans service users without careful training, consultation and checking they were happy first. So why are other groups less important to be sensitive to?

receive an indication from a proportion of that group that one particular term is preferred, and simultaneously a response from another proportion of that group that they find the same term offensive?

Well you tell the group that wish to impose a word on others that they find offensive that this is not appropriate and you won't facilitate it. Obviously. Because everyone's voice matters equally, and we don't use labels and words for people that they have not chosen and don't agree with.

Would you permit any other class of people to require you to use an offensive term for others and ignore their own choice of words/their feelings about it on the grounds that they will be offended if you don't?

how exactly do you refer to specific demographics when you either can not canvas them en masse to establish an acceptable collective noun

Female is not an organisation with a leader or a cultural phenomenon. It is a sex. It occurs across species, plant and animal.

Happily you no more need to ask me whether I accept sex classification than you need to ask my cat.

You just need to be accurate so that you can supply appropriate services and medical treatment.

@MichelleofzeResistance

It's a question of competence, remit, terms of service, and the fact that the individuals comprising the people we offer a service to come and go as time passes, new ones appear, old ones reappear, and so on.

It simply is not possible for us to canvass every single potential user of our service because

a) we don't know who they are, due to the fact they might exist only as potential, and not current, service users

b) our terms of service are limited by geographical area, whereas these groups are not. So you might find, for example, that people in one specific locale prefer one term, whereas up the road it's something entirely different.

c) limitations of resources

d) It's a bit simpler with much smaller specific groups, including trans people, due to the fact that they are a much smaller demographic overall, and proportionately speaking have more in place in terms of easily identifiable advocacy, collective representation etc.

e) past endeavours have shown that there isn't a perfect concurrence between users who want to express a wish, users who have preferred terms, and users who will actually respond to an enquiry anyway. We find that people are often very vocal when they find something that offends them, but they are oftentimes quite shy when you ask them if they bothered to respond to the initial consultation. Humans eh?

Simply put, we don't regard any group as being of lesser importance when it comes to sensitivity, the practicalities of actually achieving some sort of consensus on what is actually appropriate is just an order of magnitude more difficult with some groups than others. Believe me, there's nothing more I'd like than to be universally regarded as inoffensive and anodyne when it comes to 'labels', but I honestly think this is a case of you are going to have someone's back up no matter what.

**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**

This 👏

There IS a universally accepted term for a group of adult females. WOMEN.

Services for women. Services for trans women.

There. Not hard, is it?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

Thank you Eresh - I was after a new name!

It does not remove the requirement to refer to that group, so what do you do?

I still find this confusing. I don’t understand when you would need to refer to ‘non-trans’ women. If you refer to the group of people who would previously be considered transsexuals, that group is tiny, far far smaller than the group of women who have had e.g. breast cancer. However, there is no descriptor for ‘women who haven’t had breast cancer’.

If you are referring to people included in the trans umbrella, that is a massive group of people, and it’s very difficult to

Sorry but this is really getting beyond rational now. Why do I have to pick one of these hundred new titles to suit a few. I was born female, I am a woman end of. I will never be anything else. End of. Oh and just to clarify for the one area that is changing its terms, I also am a birth mother and I breast-fed my kids.

Sorry - difficult to explain what they have in common.