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.

@deadleaves

That would be really offensive to trans women and also less clear

I really, really don't understand this. How can people both wave around ' ' proud to be trans' banners and simultaneously be offended at being called a transwoman?

Its its own thing. Own it and be proud of it!

Guys you are all misunderstanding.

I did use the word “trans” to refer to trans women. I then needed a word to refer to “non-trans” women. This was for the sake of clarity. No group was to be privileged over the other.

If I had made the groups:

Women vs cis women

Or

Women vs trans women

That would be a) less clear, b) prioritising one group over the other.

It would be like saying

BME women vs women.

That would be deeply problematic.

That would be really offensive to trans women and also less clear.

What would be offensive about it? And why would it be less clear?
Transwomen is the name on all their flags and SM bio's etc.. so what makes it offensive?
Everyone knows the difference between women and transwomen so I really don't understand why it would be less clear, when the majority of people don't even know what Cis means.

BME women vs women.

All of those people are women, therefore yes it would be confusing.

Or 'deeply problematic', if you prefer save me

Women vs trans women

Two completely different groups, therefore not confusing at all.

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 “transwomen” and “non transwomen”. Ultimately I shifted to using “transwomen” and “ cis women” because it saved words and made the paper more comprehensible and I didn’t see how it was more or less offensive to say “cis” than “ non trans”.

Really? You wrote a paper, presumably an academic paper, and seriously considered using the phrase ”non transwomen” to describe women. Blimey, I hope I never get stuck behind you in a coffee shop queue, it must take ages to order your coffee..... “I will have a non flat white with no milk and a double shot “ “ Do you mean an espresso with two shots.” “Yes.”

And just to point out, using woman/women would have saved you lots of words.

If many women are offended (which you can see they are) and people find it less clear would you rethink your approach Bizawit?

The word 'woman' has been fucked over and its meaning changed without actual women being properly consulted.

The bloody arrogant cheek of it incenses me. The word woman has a perfectly good meaning already. It defines a sex class.

Cis woman?
No thank you.

You are right about one thing though, it is no more offensive to say cis than non trans. They are both equally offensive, and redundant.

I reject cis completely. And here's why -

genderapostates.com/cissexism-and-you/

Additionally, @michaelmumsnet the regular posters on this board have asked a number of times for the link to the rules on this board to have a link title which corresponds with the name of the policy which is 'Mumsnet moderation principles for discussions around gender identity and sex', not 'Trans Rights Policy'. Could this be changed please?

I had also asked some time ago for this part of the policy -

• 2. We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

To be amended to say -

'We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line'

as otherwise it sounds like you allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards women. I was told by a mod that the wording would be reviewed - can you please let us know if/when that will be done? Thanks.

@BiBabbles

There are women, assigned female at birth, who identify as women, yet are genetically male. For example, women with CAIS:

Socially, we sex on phenotype - so yes, they're usually recorded as female as they have a female phenotype.

It is hurtful to call them men, yes, because they have a female phenotype.

Research in this area has shown a stronger identity connection with phenotype than sex chromosomes as they're not any more likely to have gender dysphoria than anyone else. That's nothing to do with the trans/cis binary & most get that genetically male means male phenotype. Our sex phenotype comes from genetics too, so claiming just sex chromosomes are genetic isn't entirely accurate.

Cis is just a descriptor for someone who is not trans.

No, it means "on the same side."

Dysphoric people who do not identify as trans being categorized as "cis" makes no fucking sense -- you are saying we're on the same side as what distresses us - and erases there are many other ways of viewing gender and gender dysphoria. The trans/cis binary is not universal, many groups around the world have asked for it not to be applied to them as they have a different view of gender diversity. Some are moving away from trans/cis binary and using gender diverse instead in order to actually be inclusive on this topic.

So no, cisgender doesn't mean "not transgender" it means someone who has a very particular view of gender who views themselves within that framework of having a gender on the same side as their sex.

only a minority of variations in sex development are associated with an underlying medical issue which needs treatment. The majority are simply differences in development.

Only a minority are fatal without treatment, the majority - for quality of life reasons - most are recommended to have usually some form of treatments, usually hormonal, as the "differences" are linked to endocrine issues which can have a knock on effect across the body as hormones control bloody everything. In fact, health care access is a big thing for many activists in this area. Erasing the health issues helps no one.

They identify as women and if they want to call themselves women and use her/she etc then that's mighty fine by me.

And that's fine socially.

Legally, there is a different matter. We don't allow people to claim the rights and protections of being British who aren't born British without background checks, references, tests, and such no matter how someone has lived or identifies. I don't think sex should have less consideration than nationality.

Would you rather them use male and get stared at and treated unkindly because that's what happens.

Do you think they don't experience stares or unkindness in single sex women's spaces? Do you think we're all sweetness and light?

Shockingly, no one seemed to mind my being stared at and being treated unkindly in the girls' locker room, but I most certainly was not allowed in the boys' without supervision, even when they allowed me to wrestle with the boys. Some risks were considered too far and we all deserved privacy even if we then wore skin tight unitards.

Socially, we sex on phenotype - so yes, they're usually recorded as female as they have a female phenotype

Vague to the point of meaningless statement. “Phenotype” is a very general term that could comprise a variety of characteristics that differ/ vary in individual bodies. Phenotype is the appearance of bodies based on the interaction of genes and the environment. Our chromosomes determine what is commonly understood (scientifically and colloquially to be “genetic sex”).

most are recommended to have usually some form of treatments

That doesn’t mean those treatments are medically necessary, because someone has a “serious medical condition”. They are typically done for cosmetic/ social reasons.

The rest of your post is such a derail or my original comment, I’m not going to bother responding to it.

@RottenRowGal

BME women vs women.

All of those people are women, therefore yes it would be confusing.

Or 'deeply problematic', if you prefer save me

Women vs trans women

Two completely different groups, therefore not confusing at all.

Yes. This is the real point. The reason you find the term offensive is you want to exclude trans women from the category “woman”. That’s all . Not everyone agrees with/ shares this (horrible and exclusionary) policing of language. Therefor some readers would find the distinction less than clear. To some readers it would be the same as saying “BME women” vs “women”, and it wouldn’t be clear whether the latter group was a broader category that also included the former.

*the reason you find the term “cis” offensive

@MarshaBradyo

If many women are offended (which you can see they are) and people find it less clear would you rethink your approach Bizawit?

Yes, which is why I tried using the terminology “non trans” rather than “cis” (because I am aware that “cis” is an offensive term on mumsnet!) before I realised that usong “non-trans” instead was pointless/ actually arguably more offensive

@deadleaves

That would be really offensive to trans women and also less clear

I really, really don't understand this. How can people both wave around ' ' proud to be trans' banners and simultaneously be offended at being called a transwoman?

Its its own thing. Own it and be proud of it!

Have to agree with this. They bang on and on about trans visibility but at the same time want to be treated as if they are totally indistinguishable from the sex they are appropriating. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

If you identify as 'cis' and have a 'cis women' dating site, this will not be allowed.

By doing that you have bought into the idea that the 'majority' of the wider group, 'women', are 'cis' and the minority of 'women' 'not cis'. In providing a 'cis' dating site, you will exclude the 'non cis' and therefore become the oppressor of the apparently less privileged minority 'non cis' group.

Any punishment for this will be rigorously enforced because the reality is the opposite way round.

It’s depressing someone cares so little about what women think.

I suppose that’s what we’re up against.

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.

Really?

I stopped deferring to men's words for women a long time ago and won't be starting again anytime soon. I think it's something that each woman determines for herself as words come in and out of usage by men, some go along with them without really thinking about it at all.

Words for women like bird, chick, girl, babe, tottie, doll, bitch, ho, and now cis are all just men's words for women, not women's words.

I don't respond to any of them.

So... someone has to ask... what do you mean by the word 'woman', Bizawit? If you've written a paper about women /transwomen you must have some sort of definition?

(Like most people I simply mean 'adult human female' - clear, unambiguous and useful).

@Artichokeleaves

If they identify as a woman then of course they're entitled to use single sex spaces. Would you rather them use male and get stared at and treated unkindly because that's what happens.

What do you plan to do with all the women excluded from the female single sex space because they can't and won't access mixed sex spaces, often due to disability, trauma, faith, culture - or are you only bothered about making sure male people aren't treated unkindly?

What about the women currently staying in dangerously abusive relationships because they won't go into refuges or rape crisis centres because these have been made mixed sex?

What about the women who have been sexually abused in prison by male convicted sex offenders identifying as women?

Kindness isn't something females give to males. Inclusion means meeting all diversity of need. Shoving female need aside, minimising and dismissing them in order to value the same needs in male people? That's sexism.

I couldn't put it better myself.

@MarshaBradyo

It’s depressing someone cares so little about what women think.

I suppose that’s what we’re up against.

😂😂😂😂 “what women think”. Do we all have one collective brain now? I am a woman (a “cis”, “non trans”, “natal” one to be precise 🤣), and (thankfully) think very differently to you.

Yes, you're correct @Bizawit. I do want to exclude people who are not women from the category 'women'. It's pretty simple stuff.

To some readers it would be the same as saying “BME women” vs “women”, and it wouldn’t be clear whether the latter group was a broader category that also included the former

Yeah, and there's a word for people who would be 'unclear' about whether BME women are the same as women...

It's not people like me who are trying to muddy the waters here. We see you.

Vague to the point of meaningless statement. “Phenotype” is a very general term that could comprise a variety of characteristics that differ/ vary in individual bodies. Phenotype is the appearance of bodies based on the interaction of genes and the environment. Our chromosomes determine what is commonly understood (scientifically and colloquially to be “genetic sex”).

Female phenotype is not a "vague meaningless statement", it has a specific meaning in human biology as it does in other forms of biology. Sex phenotype has a specific meaning too, I just thought sex was implied when I said "Socially, we sex on phenotype".

Our chromosomes determine both our phenotype and our genetic sex, but someone who is not doing sex testing saying 'genetically male' about looking for a dating partner - they are discussing their sex phenotype, because that's how we socially sex each other. How do you think we understood male and female & human attraction before genes were known about?

That doesn’t mean those treatments are medically necessary, because someone has a “serious medical condition”. They are typically done for cosmetic/ social reasons.

No, treatment for the endocrine system isn't done for cosmetic/social reasons. I have treatments for my endocrine system, no one can physically tell the difference other than I have more energy and I'm not being hospitalized regularly. I would argue most things to do with the endocrine system are serious, but I can get why others would disagree.

You're thinking surgical treatment which is a different kettle of fish.

Guys you are all misunderstanding.

And you're misunderstanding that individuals don't always fit into social categories, especially not academic ones.

Some people say I'm trans entirely because I have gender dysphoria even though I do not identify that way.

Some people say I'm cis entirely because I don't identify as trans even though many of the things that are meant to be 'cis', like being comfortable with my sexed traits and never questioning my gender, are entirely false.

I am erased in either group. You're paper is unlikely to cover people like me, but it's not transphobic to recognize the trans/cis binary has limits like most social models to divide people and for those who feel erased by it to discuss other ways of doing this. That's why many people discuss gender diversity, but that's apparently derailing to you that there are other models of gender, some which have gained popularity as research tries to be more inclusive of those models.

clear, unambiguous and useful

Ahh not so much I’m afraid. Life just isn’t that simple. I’m sorry not everyone in the world is exactly like you and that offends you so greatly.

😂😂😂😂 “what women think”. Do we all have one collective brain now? I am a woman (a “cis”, “non trans”, “natal” one to be precise 🤣), and (thankfully) think very differently to you.

I’m glad you find it so amusing

So many emojis - do you use them in your ‘papers’ too?

Clearly you are hopeless at taking on board what anyone says. Why?

Is it because the people saying it are women not men?

@newnameday

As stated, I also hated it. 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.

Not that it matters in any way except dating probably. I also am just "a woman" but I feel in some contexts we may be better off adopting it.

Hmm, I understand where you're coming from. Just one question: do you then also accept that you are an oppressor of men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment?