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.

You can call yourself whatever you like Sionnach. You can equally call yourself maverique, scoliosexual, whatever niche labels you want to apply to yourself, obviously. It doesn't bother me, it's just clear that nobody really has any decent arguments for why the average person should adopt the label "cis". I won't be joining you, for the clear reasons I've stated.

People are likely to respect your choice for yourself if you in turn respect their choice for themselves.

I think 'respect' is going too far. Maybe 'accept people's absolute right to have strange ideas that they can't explain as long as they are harmless'.

Quite, merrymouse. That's where I am with it.

I think Sionnach is having a bit of a rough ride. I accept their right to identify as CIS if they want.

However I expect the same acceptance that I absolutely do not identify as CIS and many others on this chain feel the same.

I can't claim to understand the rationale. Personally I am offended when referred to as CIS as I don't believe I need a qualifier within the women's bracket. But I think in part my concern is that it reinforces stereotypes, i'm a woman and I like baking but I also like tree climbing and riding a motorbike and I don't want those things denied to a girl unless she classes herself as a man, manly, masculine etc. Similarly I don't believe my pink loving, makeup wearing son needs to be a girl to make those choices. Gender just seems like old fashioned stereotypes for people who weren't born in the 80's and lived through the breaking of boundaries and burning of stereotypes via Bowie, Adam and the Ants, Boy George, Annie Lennox, Duran Duran etc. Very sad for them really.

This one of those things that one person being ok with cannot over ride others saying No. Similar to one person being ok with unisex bathrooms can't override other women's requirement to keep sex based spaces

I'm not sure "European" is particularly helpful given European is neither an ethnicity nor a legal status.

No...cis is basically stamping me with a stereotype of (woman) gender
Fought all my life to battle impacts of gender stereotype of my sex. ain’t going to roll over and accept someone gender stereotyping me now

Calling myself cis isn't a problem for me. It may be a problem for you but doesn't trouble me in the slightest.
I'm as much cis as I am European.

Of course you are if talking about yourself and a transman. Both of you are female and you identify with your sex and a transman does not. Although strictly speaking the transman should call themselves a transgender woman. Your cisgendershio cannot be used to distinguish yourself from a transwoman as you don't share the same set, in this case sex. However, a man can distinguish himself from a transwoman by saying he is a cisgender male and the transwoman is a non cisgender male.

If cis is all important to some, how about they call themselves non cis women/non cis men? Job done.

I’m happy with woman to describe me. I don’t need no cis.

However, a man can distinguish himself from a transwoman by saying he is a cisgender male and the transwoman is a non cisgender male

Or the man could say that he was just a man and the transwoman a transwoman.

There is no need for cis at all.

Or the man could say that he was just a man and the transwoman a transwoman.

That works too

The concept of gender identity is not 'complex'. It just breaks down under scrutiny…

I understand that this is the gender-critical perspective; I disagree. (Thank you for the article, it was an interesting read.)

That's because short women are women and tall women are women…

With respect and appreciation for you taking the time to reply, I wasn't making a deep point—just politely clarifying the role of antonyms in response to an invalid syllogism. :)

But sex is undeniable.

To be clear, I recognise that humans exhibit sexual dimorphism.

just politely clarifying the role of antonyms in response to an invalid syllogism

Actually, it isn't particularly polite to pick people up on grammatical points. In any case, cis is not an antonym of trans, so your argument doesn't apply. My point was not as simple as you assume; it was that it is just as absurd to say that transwomen are women as it is to say that women (whom you would refer to as 'cis') are male.

I'd prefer to state my opinion politely and leave it there out of respect for each other's time was what you said on Saturday. And yet here you are still mansplaining

The thing with gender is that you have to ask.

If you've not been asked if you identify as cisgender how can anyone know whether you will understand the message is for you or not? There's also the question about outing people.

So if at work there's something for cisgender women, it would be assumed that I would understand it to be for me. However, as an agender person, although not 'out', it's not.

I thought assuming gender was a total no no but this seems to be the default for people who do not identify as cis.

How is this being addressed? Is it the reason women (but not men for some reason) are increasingly referred to by body parts? So a work thing might say for people with a vagina or similar?

The other point here is that some trans people identify as cis. So what then?

The disability thing is interesting.

I have a life long physical disability. When I was young and in and out of hosp, I did not identify as disabled because it was a label I was not emotionally ready to adopt at that age.

Around the age of, late 30s, I did start using it. I had had more than 3 decades to get used to my situation and was more at peace with it.

So I did not identify as disabled, then I did. I did not necessarily appear disabled unless I had to do certain fairly common but also fairly easily avoided things. So depending on how well people knew me, some would have identified me as disabled and some not.

If I had wanted certain benefits, there are thresholds that I would have to have met to qualify. Someone would judge whether i was disabled enough.

So it's really not straightforward and I think it's a poor comparison as the vast majority of people do have a clear sex.

'I thought assuming gender was a total no no but this seems to be the default for people who do not identify as cis.'

Are not out as trans would be a better way of putting that.

I understand that this is the gender-critical perspective; I disagree. (Thank you for the article, it was an interesting read.)

This would mean something if anyone had ever explained gender identity in a way that doesn’t refer to stereotypes.

It’s a bit like me saying ‘sexism is harmful to women’ and you saying ‘I disagree’ without explain why.

I realise that you might dislike the reference to sexism, but nobody has ever explained gender identity in a way that isn’t either sexist or meaningless.

‘Without explaining why’.

@NiceGerbil

'I thought assuming gender was a total no no but this seems to be the default for people who do not identify as cis.'

Are not out as trans would be a better way of putting that.

Which of the 100 and something 'recognised' genders with no particular identifying traits are people supposed to guess at?

Nope

FrippEnos

You have to ask. That's the point of pronoun badges/ signatures in emails etc.

I think it would be much easier to get rid of titles (thus solving the whole long running miss Mrs Ms feminist gripe) which are outdated and also a massive pita and (for women at least) are often assumed and not right.

And, clunky as it is, to use they/ them for everything, or a name when it doesn't work to use they.

We've used they when we don't assume a sex in our industry for years and it's fine.

EG the sales person gets the call and then they input the info into the system. Or whatever it might be. This came about to stop like. The CEO will pass it to his PA and she will distribute it by email. That sort of thing.

Again rather than go for the easy answer, which would also solve other problems. We all have to learn new language and then remember who is what even if we've only met them once. I am terrible with names and faces so this seems like a nightmare.

Also if you're having a call with lots of people you've never met, I suppose you'd have to do the research on the company intranet first and makes notes beforehand? And how will this fly internationally?

I asked this a couple of times and not got an answer.

Already it's usual to use English for business if international.

Some people pick an 'English name' to make things easier for us. Now we want to export these new rules which may well not be happening where they are- how is it all going to be explained to avoid offence? I suppose stonewall will have to go global...

No. I have a special loathing for that label.

NiceGerbil

But we are not allowed to ask, its impolite and offensive.

“So it's really not straightforward and I think it's a poor comparison as the vast majority of people do have a clear sex.”

Everybody in the world has a clear sex. You’re either male or female. You can only be born one or the other and you can never ever change your sex.