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

@30PercentRecycled

Wait, I am confused. I thought trans ideology said that

1. male and female are biological categories relevant in medicine (and in sex change - do you need testosterone or oestrogen, do we remove your breasts or create silicone breasts?)

2. man and woman are to be redefined as social categories that do not necessarily map to a person's biological sex of male or female.

So, under gender ideology it would be fine to say transwomen are males but not transwomen are men

Has that changed recently?

If so what are the new words to indicate whether a trans person is a transwoman or a transman, whether they need to be booked in for a mastectomy or a boob job?

I believe that has changed, yes. The co-chair of Green Party women was suspended for querying if transwomen are female.

Your last question, what would presumably differentiate a transman from a transwoman would be the sex they are “assigned” at birth. So (I think) transwomen would be described as females assigned male at birth.

I could be wrong about this, hopefully someone will correct me if that’s the case.

It's the opposite to Totally Ridiculous And Narcissistic Simpering.

The thing that's being pushed for now as we all know is on stats etc to only collect gender.

Collecting both sex and gender- even with prefer not to say options- is a no-no. Even though it gives a full picture and would benefit trans people more.

The stated objectives simply don't make sense when put against the demands.

@ErrolTheDragon

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?

This is an excellent point.

We segregate due to sex for very obvious reasons: female physical protection in the case of prisons etc, female privacy in the case of changing rooms and toilets, female anonymity and safety in the case of refuges, female opportunity in the case of sports teams and competitions.

There are real, physical reason for these.

Some people are sorely mistaken that because women and men can join mixed golf clubs and anyone can, for the most part, go where they please, that they must be able to access everything they demand. No, you can't just get anything you want. That's life. There are fucking good reasons why women and girls need certain spaces to be separate from men.

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

That was one of my very first conclusions, and I've stuck with it.

If it matters, then sex is what's important - for sports classification/safeguarding/privacy. All the reasons for the segregation there are based on sex differences.

If it doesn't matter, then it shouldn't be segregated.

If I care about someone's sex for some purpose, I care about their actual sex. Otherwise I'm just going to treat them like a person. I do not see how anyone's gender is relevant to anything. (I'd have to know what it is first...)

You could create a test that accurately identified and classified gender identity at birth (even 8 billion classifications!), and you would still need specific rights and protections for the people with the large gamete producing body type.

It's all irrelevant to the need for sex based rights which have nothing to do with personal feelings about identity. Oh to have the necessary privilege to believe that anyone restricting liberty gives a flying &*^% about other people's sense of self.

Yes to why segregate anything by gender? In law anyway. Laws around sex specific services, yes. Laws around gender specific services, no, why?

Groups for girly people and butch people don't need to be sex segregated.

Maybe groups like sewing for boys or blacksmithing for girls might want to keep a sex split because they are outreach groups responding to societal stereotypes making it hard for boys/girls to feel comfortable joining those hobby groups. I guess that would fall under proportionate response to a legitimate need. Especially if the usual sewing/metalwork group is open to everyone.

I think the underlying issue was fear of male violence due to homophobia (transpobia which is essentially the same thing when it comes to men beating other men up).

This was back when transsexual was the thing and it was a smaller number of people with dysphoria etc.

It was that which set the idea that some men should be treated as women under some circs. I think using women's toilets was part of the 'proof' that you qualified for a GRC. (may be getting mixed up though).

As the definitions have grown wider and wider the idea that some men can and should be included in X. Essentially on their say so and no one must be allowed to question it. It's a very different matter.

And in the end it really doesn't make sense.

Because loads of men are at risk of male violence. Men who are perceived as gay, weak, effeminate, men who are disabled, of various races or religions etc etc.

The fact that
The risks to other men are never mentioned
The idea of tackling male violence, toxic masculine ideas about men who are different, other, more vulnerable etc is never raised

Leaves me pretty cold.

Why should one group of men get shelter from male violence but not others?
Why is male treatment of other males not on the agenda?

Orgs like stonewall have loads of support, money and influence. Taking this on would help gay men as well.

So why the silence on all of this?