What does CIS mean?

[Babysharkdoodoodood]

I mean really?
I was discussing (ranting) about this with DH today. Trying to explain why I'm a woman and not a cis female.

Then he come out with this beauty (not being nasty): Doesn't it just mean Cunt In Situ?

I was absolutely howling mainly because it's true

ok. Thanks.....

It only works if sex doesn't relate to biological reproductive roles

Which would then mean we need another set of words for sex education and health

What new words can we make up that mean biologically female/male in the baby making sense to replace woman and man if they are to mean gender ?

Bam and spam for baby and sperm makers ?

@midgedude

It only works if sex doesn't relate to biological reproductive roles

Which would then mean we need another set of words for sex education and health

What new words can we make up that mean biologically female/male in the baby making sense to replace woman and man if they are to mean gender ?

Bam and spam for baby and sperm makers ?

Yes why do TRAs want to abolish this distinction? Life is navigable because we break up what we see around us into categories and assign words to things.

No one is arguing we shouldn't have words for different races and saying we should all just be "people". Because, yes we are all people but categories matter.

Why is this a problem?

Who benefits if women can’t talk about themselves as a distinct group, can’t see patterns, can’t organise?

It ain’t women, that’s for sure

It has always confused me that trans women dont just label themselves cis. They are the only people I know who subscribe to gender stereotypes of women.

Yes, someone suggested on another thread that MTF trans people could call themselves "woman in the head people" and they can ally with all the biologically female people who also consider themselves "woman in the head people" and we can have woman in the head spaces and biologically female spaces. The female woman in the head people could use either of course. Would that be a reasonable suggestion?

Reader, it was not. The presence of women who didn't want males there was required.

I get it. So you redefine women to include people who are not "reproductively female", get the "reproductively female" women to consider themselves a subset of women, construct a narrative which says that this subset is somehow more privileged than the "non-reproductively female" women and, bingo! You still have access to the services of the "reproductively female" women, but don't have to worry any more about their rights.

That really is very clever.

More seriously, I can see how that would be the effect of the reclassification, but I'm not convinced (yet) that it's the intention.

@alreadytaken

It has always confused me that trans women dont just label themselves cis. They are the only people I know who subscribe to gender stereotypes of women.

Yep I agree. We don’t want the term but as a group they seem very keen. They are welcome to it.

You don't need an opposite to trans. Just plain old man or woman will do.

Pissing myself laughing that if you're not trans you're privileged.

Yes, someone suggested on another thread that MTF trans people could call themselves "woman in the head people" and they can ally with all the biologically female people who also consider themselves "woman in the head people" and we can have woman in the head spaces and biologically female spaces. The female woman in the head people could use either of course. Would that be a reasonable suggestion?

Sounds reasonable to me.

I mean in theory you would only need 3 spaces in total...
One for biologically male people
One for biologically female people
One for all the "gender is in your head people" (male or female, trans or cis) who by virtue of being trans (or trans allies) are (apparently) no threat to anyone ever and just want to pee.

So you would be happy to compromise - you don't get called cis, and you, in turn don't call trans women men.*

I can’t speak for everyone of course but I personally never have and never would call a transwoman a man, unless they wanted me to. I would call them as they wished to be called. Doesn’t mean I would think they are the same as someone who was born female, but I would not call them a man.
I would like not to be called a cis woman please. I don’t like it.

No one is arguing we shouldn't have words for different races and saying we should all just be "people". Because, yes we are all people but categories matter.

But in practical terms the differences between races are minimal. Without racism they would have very little impact.

Sex, on the other hand has very significant consequences.

'What about if I said "could you introduce me to your trans friend" and you wanted to tell me that actually they weren't trans?

What if I said to you "I appreciate that trans women like yourself belong to an oppressed class." How would you tell me you're not trans?'

What rude questions! Do you really go around talking like that shizu?

1. You're not supposed to assume people's gender

1. If the comparison to groups of oppressed women is followed then. Could you introduce me to your lesbian friend? I appreciate disabled women like yourself belong to an oppressed class..

Seriously?????

I mean come on.

Note it's not my view that some men should be included in the sex category female. Just making that point.

"Could you introduce me to your European friend?"

"Sorry, you are going to have to explain what you mean by European".

@MarshaBradyo

Shizuku do you think humans are either XX or XY?

(For vast majority, bar very few)

Of all the questions shizuku has been unable to answer, while positioning themselves as an expert on sex and gender, this is the most hilarious. They can't even answer yes or no. There is no debate. Because they can't manage it.

It’s just the new word for woman.

Give it five years or less, they’ll be trying to claim ‘cis woman’ as their own as well.

Regardless, whatever word applies to a woman with two X chromosomes and a female reproductive system will never apply to them so 🤷🏼‍♀️

Give it five years or less, they’ll be trying to claim ‘cis woman’ as their own as well.

Don't some (eg India willoughby?) already do so?

@ErrolTheDragon

Give it five years or less, they’ll be trying to claim ‘cis woman’ as their own as well.

Don't some (eg India willoughby?) already do so?

You’re kidding 😂😂

Biologically female apparently...

Cis woman, female, and female from birth have all been used by trans women.

There's no point in ceding any of it. The only acceptable result is that there are no words for the cunty people in the world, which has massive ramifications.

When you factor in the push from various directions to refer to us in subgroups related to the female parts of our biology it becomes even worse. It splinters the whole thing.

Not women's rights but

Uterus havers rights
Menstruators rights
The rights of people who need abortions / men and women who need abortions
Medical issues globally related to gestation
Etc etc

Then not only is it harder to see the whole picture. But, as fans of 'oppression Olympics' these groups can all be pitted against one another to fight for funding, political change, changes in law, etc etc

And thus feminism is fucked.

If all the cunty women in the world agreed tomorrow to call ourselves hamptys, then the word hampty would be deemed terfy and exclusionary and somehow either banned, or joined.

Clues that the stated aim (being kind) is not the actual aim:

Happens very rarely indeed to male words. Man, boy, prostate, testicles. Just not on the radar for correction.
The fact that women, including ones who have experienced harm and are trying to help others, are gleefully harassed. While men get a much easier time, and they are usually just commenting and not trying to help vulnerable people, so they are less contraversial targets.
The fact that so many orgs and arms of the media do not put their money where their mouths are. Words like menstruator are saved for items around the rights of women and girls that are not headline, or items about LGBT+. When it's headlines or raising money the words girl and woman, used in the way most people understand, are fine. For some reason.

The BBC and the guardian both talked about, just to take a recent example, the plight of Uyghur women in China, they meant it in the way most people understand it. Adult human female. Why do they do this? Because to write eg Uyghur people with vaginas being subject to systematic rape in China it would cause an outrage. It's so utterly dehumanising. So they don't do it. This is very basic dishonesty. And it shows that the reason for calling women uterus havers etc is not because they think it's the right, clear thing to do. If they thought that they would use it every time it was about female sexed people. And they would do the same for males. EG young penis havers abducted and murdered by rebels.

IF the above is not how the language should be used then I'd love to be enlightened.

[quote 30PercentRecycled]Biologically female apparently...

[/quote] She thinks she's 'medically female'? What on earth does that mean? Being female isn't an estrogen level.

Good on the interviewer for holding forth. And also good on Rachel Mackinnon for answering clearly and articulating her stance. It's more than we get from TRAs on these boards and I found there was some food for thought.

But once you interrogate what she's saying it doesn't really hold water. It's patently unfair for trans women to compete against women. The Olympics aren't divided by gender identity but by sex. Otherwise we'd need 100 different categories.

I find a lot of the issues stem from people pretending things are segregated by gender when actually it's sex. And you cannot change your sex.

I find a lot of the issues stem from people pretending things are segregated by gender when actually it's sex. And you cannot change your sex.

Yeah. Is there anything that needs to be segregated by gender?

marketing categories?