AIBU to actually be starting to like the term cis?

[newnameday]

Hopefully this is allowed. Not bashing anyone.

I hated the term cis however this morning it hit me that we may be better embracing it if we can't eradicate it.

We have TWAW etc. But in the next however many years, we may find it easier, for example you're on a dating site "cis woman seeking cis man" therefore you will (hopefully) link with genetically male partners. Rather than "seeking a man" and you may possibly end up with a trans man. Again, no judgement or bashing, however I only ever wanted to be with someone who was genetically male, it's just my preference and I should be able to state this in a simple way.

So you would be able to request a man (if happy with cis or trans man) or woman, a cis man/woman and the subsections of lesbian or gay.

Prepared to be told IABU and sure that someone will likely be able to point out why this is bad. I'm not wanting this to be a bashing thread. I'm just starting to think the term may become useful in the not-too-distant future.

Also prepared this may end up deleted.

YABU.

I find the term Cis Woman deeply offensive and will ignore anyone who attempts to use it to describe me.

I am an adult human female woman.

A trans woman is a trans woman.

Sex is important, gender not so much.

We are fighting for it somewhat and I’d say the tide has started to turn

Mn had a small part in that imo

Still agree we are women, but it seems our word is being taken. We can fight for it, but who knows how that will end up.

Can you imagine 20 years ago, even 10, that in 2021 women would be having to 'fight' to call ourselves women, and questioning where that fight will end up?

To me, that is completely wrong. People can identify however they like but I will not be gaslit into believing and saying things that are scientifically incorrect and I will not stand by and say nothing at the attempts to erase women.

I just feel we may get to a point where if you're introduced to a woman or man, how do you know if they're trans, unless they tell you

So if Adam Peaty and James Guy grew their hair long and put some lipstick and a skirt on, it would be impossible to tell him apart from the women swimmers in this photo?

@FatBettyintheCoop please rtft

Him = them

Cis summed up, IMO.

Oh... hellooo.. Another AIBU thread moved to the naughty corner!! Welcome OP, you have been censured and censored.

@teawamutu

Cis summed up, IMO.

😅😍 okay I love this. And it makes more sense.

It's ridiculous to expect all the (actual, real, natal, natural, biological, genetic) women of the world to change how they refer to themselves for the sake of a handful of people offended by the prefix "trans".

I wouldn't give an inch, because the activists are already trying to take the whole mile.

Glad you've changed your mind, OP.

[quote herecomesthsun]@Bizawit

I did not say that "cis" should never be used.

(Although I would agree with PP that the derivation from Latin is a bit lame)

I said that quite a few women find it offensive (see thread, passim)

Women who do not find it offensive can of course choose to label themselves that way, it's a free country.

I am rather older than the usage "cis" and I would like to go on being called a woman. It seems like a sensible term, and it is generally clear ti most people, in most settings, exactly what is being referred to.

Given that a lot of women don't like being called "cis", however, it might be more respectful of women's feelings for it not to be used, unless it is clear that your audience is enthusiastic about the term?[/quote]
It’s not about choosing to “label” people anything. Of course we should be considerate of others’ feelings in our use of language - hence I , for one, have no problem calling trans women , women.

But we also need to be able to use language in a way that is descriptive.
For example, I am currently writing a paper where I need to compare outcomes for a group of trans women against a group of non-trans/ cis/ natal - whatever language you prefer- women. At first I went to great lengths to avoid the word “cis” as I know people on mumsnet find it offensive (😂). At some point I realised it was just becoming clumsy as I constantly was having to say “non-trans” and how was that meaningfully any different to just saying “cis” anyway? They mean the same thing.

What I came to realise is the reason some women (on mumsnet) find the word “cis” offensive, is that they want to pretend trans women don’t exist.

We already have the names - girl, boy, woman, man, they don't require a prefix, they are alright as they are.

@Helleofabore

Oh... hellooo.. Another AIBU thread moved to the naughty corner!! Welcome OP, you have been censured and censored.

Oh dear. Slapped wrist for me.

I thought as much I just completely forgot myself and the negative connotations of "cis".

Oh well, you live and learn.

We can hope that the hundred posters who just say "YABU I don't like it" after I've admitted I was in the wrong have gone.

I want to keep up with the interesting posters. But the same old convos are bugging me.

@AlthoughTheyFlyByJumboJet

It's ridiculous to expect all the (actual, real, natal, natural, biological, genetic) women of the world to change how they refer to themselves for the sake of a handful of people offended by the prefix "trans".

I wouldn't give an inch, because the activists are already trying to take the whole mile.

Glad you've changed your mind, OP.

Thank you. I'm always happy to admit when wrong.

I don't want to give anything. I just want to make myself distinguishable as a sex/gender/whatever. I thought it was important to do but even if we say "female born female" I'm certain that someone will be along to say "I was born female but in the wrong body".

There's no winning, I'm sure.

@newnameday I don't know if you've seen this thread before - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me - it's an invaluable resource.

Er, well transwomen DO exist.

I just think it isn't logical for the given orthodoxy to have become that

• transwomen are women

• women however, can't be called women

• they have to be called cis women

• and medical literature ends up talking about "bodies with vaginas"(though apparently the Lancet selectively edited that quote)

I can see that writing a paper leaves you with a dilemma

as some of your readership will find their toes curl a bit however you try to describe the categories.

[quote Waitwhat23]@newnameday I don't know if you've seen this thread before - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me - it's an invaluable resource.[/quote]
Thank you, added to watch list and I'll give it a read through.

@Bizawit

I'm always happy to admit when wrong

Translation: I’m always committed to being as transphobic as possible. Thanks for pointing out my original post wasn’t quite as transphobic as it could have been. I have seen the error of my ways..

Happy to admit I'm wrong in any sense. If I feel I have been given reason to feel wrong.

Call yourself what you like but don't ever call me cis. I'm not cis, I'm a woman.

@herecomesthsun

Er, well transwomen DO exist.

I just think it isn't logical for the given orthodoxy to have become that

• transwomen are women

• women however, can't be called women

• they have to be called cis women

• and medical literature ends up talking about "bodies with vaginas"(though apparently the Lancet selectively edited that quote)

I can see that writing a paper leaves you with a dilemma

as some of your readership will find their toes curl a bit however you try to describe the categories.

Both trans women and cis women can , and are, simply called women. Cis women are almost always simply referred to as women.

But in my paper I needed to differentiate between the two groups. I needed descriptive language that would enable
Me to do that.

so I called the groups “trans women” and “non-trans women”. Ultimately I shifted to using “trans women” and “cis women” because it saved words/ made the paper more comprehensible, and i didn’t see how it was any more or less offensive to say “cis” than “non trans”.

As I said, the real reason many women find the word “cis” offensive is they want to pretend trans women don’t exist - they’d rather there was no other category of women.

What I came to realise is the reason some women (on mumsnet) find the word “cis” offensive, is that they want to pretend trans women don’t exist.

Of course they exist. We're just pointing out that they're not women. In order to be classed as women, you would need to explain what a trans woman has in common with women. That's all women on the planet currently, and throughout human history.

If we're not defined by biology, it must be something else that makes us definitely not-men. So what is it?

Now that this thread has been ushered over to the naughty corner, unfamiliar posters might want to read the rules, otherwise you could find deletions and a ban coming your way

www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

But in my paper I needed to differentiate between the two groups.

Just use women and transwomen?

Have a key if necessary, it would take the reader no time at all to understand it

What I came to realise is the reason some women (on mumsnet) find the word “cis” offensive, is that they want to pretend trans women don’t exist.

This is just incorrect.

Has the pp re-thought this?