As we know, 'cis' is a load of BS

[Leafstamp]

I've just seen this on Twitter, and thought it was too good not to share...

twitter.com/HaydenHewitt/status/1412425371744706560

For anyone who doesn't want to click:

If CIS means "on the same side as" and TRANS means "on the opposite side as" does "Trans Woman" mean "on the opposite side as woman". I wonder what the opposite of woman is?

and a couple of replies:

CIS man would be a transwoman.

...This is what happens when you appropriate scientific terms used in genetics, chemistry and geography and use them to enable you to enter female spaces.

Very good! I think chemists have pointed that out before.

This whole movement is about twisting words.

Eg antifa now means something entirely different. As does queer.

think chemists have pointed that out here before.
That should say.

antifa now means something entirely different.

What could be more antifascist than attacking religious minorities in a black-shirted mob?

Yes I think I have heard chemists explain it’s a nonsense prefix to use. Always good to bring it to the attention of newbies to this board.

Queer puzzles me. From what I can gather a lot of lesbian and gay people (perhaps above a certain age??) consider it offensive/a slur. Yet somehow for others it’s acceptable to use and some describe themselves as queer quite happily.

I think language is a big part of all this, but I’d better not say more about what we call people if I want to keep my account.

But this is all fine!

The same way that

TWAW
and so can represent women in women's political groups etc
But also are trans. So TWATW? no! It doesn't work like that. Trans people need their own stuff (that bit is fine by me)

Women? Can we have anything just for the half the world's population oppressed forever?

No! That's exclusionary.

Makes total sense.

To clarify

I think different groups have different needs and issues.

Trans people should have things to support them.

It's nonsensical to include TW as women. And detrimental. To both women and TW.

the fact that nothing can be female only. But TW can and do have two advocacy areas to join.

Is s tad unbalanced.

Even what Q stands for, some say questioning, some say queer.

Some decide that queer means they have blue hair.

Heterosexual people are inventing bizarre words to "validate their queerness" in order to get a piece of the rainbow.

Trans people should have things to support them.

There's so much talk of pride. Be proud and honest, don't nick everyone else's needs and spaces.

And the "valid" and validation craze. 😑

Of course it isn't a load of 'bullshit'.You have every right to challenge it's use but, let'snot pretend it's new.

Is 'queer' now the same as non-binary?

Are there subtle differences in how special you are, or how your specialness manifests that helps you choose your label?
Do you have to join the 'woke' club to be given access to the list of definitions. Or do you just have to self-identify as woke?

Can I have my own stripe on the mish-mash flag that stands for 'totally confused'? It could be sky blue pink...

@statsgeek1

Of course it isn't a load of 'bullshit'.You have every right to challenge it's use but, let'snot pretend it's new.

New in terms of chemistry, no. New in terms of using it with a social construct like gender, yes and certainly in the way the concept is now widespread in applying personal identity labels to those who reject it. 'Cis' is nothing other than the biological essentialism that 'terfs' are always accused of. Nothing screams biological essentialist more than insisting that gender aligns with sex for the majority of people, even for those who reject it.

Of course it isn't a load of 'bullshit'.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable opinion. If one doesn't believe in modern gender identity ideology, like most people, it seems absurd to hear that there are two types of women, the vast majority of female people who identify with their sex and a group of males who say they feel like female people.

@statsgeek1

I'd be interested to hear what your definition of 'new' is and why it being 'new' or not is relevant to the bullshit status of the term.

Phrenology is not new either. It is however bullshit.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

It is, total bullshit.

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Phrenology is not new either. It is however bullshit.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology[/quote]
Perfectly illustrated.

Age of a word/definition/concept does not correlate to it's bullshit status.

Heterosexual people are inventing bizarre words to "validate their queerness" in order to get a piece of the rainbow.

This sort of thing is just ridiculous isn't it? And ironically is kind of the opposite of letting people "be their true selves".

It's a backlash to the way really useful concepts were bastardised and became hierarchy of oppression etc.

That led to the reaction that people who had lots of oppressor points took it personally and got offended/ defensive/ resented the 'special treatment' of those with more oppression points.

And so some thought if you can't beat em join em.

@NiceGerbil

To clarify

I think different groups have different needs and issues.

Trans people should have things to support them.

It's nonsensical to include TW as women. And detrimental. To both women and TW.

the fact that nothing can be female only. But TW can and do have two advocacy areas to join.

Is s tad unbalanced.

It's nonsensical to include TW as women. And detrimental. To both women and TW.

We have been trying to say this for many years now, but we get banned, deplatformed, threatened, lose our jobs, etc etc for it.

Of course it's nonsensical, but apparently TWAW and if you say they're not then you are committing all sorts of hate crime.

I said this years ago on here.

That logically if you can ID into the female sex class then it has massive repurcussions for everything, globally.

I pointed out that if you haven't asked the gender you don't know how to record them so you can't.

I was told (by a man) not to be silly.

I also said the end point was in terms of hierarchy

Men- called men
Men who ID as women- called women
Women who ID as men- called men
Women generally- non people. I think I said. Or cunts. It's succinct. And how we're being treated. And has the advantage that it's a word in use already.

This was dunno 5 years ago or more.

Cis is misgendering the judge at Maja Foirstater's hearing Dec 2019 said so.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4290818-Petition-Parliament-for-Sex-to-be-recorded-for-all-Violent-Sexual-Offenders-throughout-CJS?msgid=108887804#108887804

Did you see my petition with 20 years of UK MOJ stats (2002-20) that with total consistency "more than 99% of all sexual offenders are MALE"
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/590123

Please sign & circulate, we have 6 months to make it to 100,000 and force a debate in the HOC. Any British resident or any British citizen can sign.

I find it all SO confusing. Could we have a less complicated system. Now a bit radical, but say you are born male, you are called boy/man/he etc, and likewise girl/woman/she. We have no choice in which of the two sexes we are, so can't we just accept it?

@statsgeek1

Of course it isn't a load of 'bullshit'.You have every right to challenge it's use but, let'snot pretend it's new.

I beg to differ. The man who coined the term cis (first as cissexual and then cisgender) considered it to be healthy for a person to conform to sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes and unhealthy not to.

That is of course complete bullshit if you look at the double bind all female people are in when it comes to sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes. If we conform to them, it harms us. It we do not conform to them, it harms us.

It is therefore complete BS to invent a term for a healthy reaction to sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes that ignores completely that it can be and often is far healthier for women to refuse to conform to stereotypes.

So, yes, statsgeek while I accept that you may find this a useful concept, I consider this to be abject nonsense representative of the far too common male inability to understand the female experience of living in a male-dominated world.

37,000 hits for cisgender in Google Scholar, not sure why anyone would get off on pretending not to understand such a simple concept, but fortunately academia is fine with it
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cisgender&btnG=

@CharlieParley, citation needed for this. "[the creator of cis] considered it to be healthy for a person to conform to sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes and unhealthy not to"
.. But who cares? Cis/cisgender has nothing to do with gender/sex stereotypes.