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.

well I don't mind trans women using the word "women" but it's not exactly in the usual biological sense as in they don't have XX chromosomes, a womb etc.

It would be in an emotional, aspirational sense, a sense of identity and so on.

That is fine and we can support that to a significant degree.

There is an issue with eg recalls for smears though, as they don't have cervixes. And so on. Wishing doesn't make it so.

We do already have a term for people who need smears, which is women.

That isn't really trans exclusionary, it is just biology.

We can invite women (the ones with wombs) for smears and we can also call transwomen Ms and respect their desire to wear make up surely.

We need to be kind to each other and they also need to recognise that women have their own needs and rights to safety and safe spaces. We can work on how to support them but it needs to be a 2 way process.

It is almost as though women are supposed to be a great all embracing Mother Figure providing unconditional love ("Be Kind") while their own needs and rights come very much second.

@BiBabbles

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.

I’m not going to get dragged into this as it’s too exhausting, save to respond to this point:

I am erased in either group. You're paper is unlikely to cover people like me

It covers all types of gender (and sex) diversity actually. Plenty of gender diverse people who are not trans. This is discussed at great length.

@Bizawit

The word women is sufficient alongside transwomen.

Women are not trying to pretend transwomen don’t exist. We just don’t want to be recategorised into a subset of men types. We don’t need a new descriptive word to differentiate us from anyone else.

The connotation of the word cis or cis gender is that biological sex doesn’t matter. That you have actively accepted the genitals you got at birth and therefore must have consciously accepted your gender based on what someone told your parents. It rides roughshod through biological sex which most people are naturally. It is a minority of people that choose a gender or to change gender but apparently we must all now have a word to state that we have chosen a gender. We haven’t. We just are what we biologically are!!

@Bizawit

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.

I know not everyone thinks the same as me, and I'm not 'offended' by it. I'm curious to know what you mean by the word 'woman'. If you can't come up with any sort of definition then you seem to have rendered it meaningless.

@herecomesthsun

Is it just me, or does anyone else have the impression that "natal women" avoids some of these issues a bit more than "cis"? in a formal academic discussion where the distinction needs to be made?

No. There is zero need to use the term natal women when woman means adult human female.

Any need for distinction could use trans if and when when needed because, let's be honest, in most discussions about women most people will already know you are talking about females.

Males demanding access to our sex class, our safe spaces, our sports, and now dictating our words.
PRIVILEGED ENTITLED MALES WHO ARE PRETENDING TO BE OPPRESSED BY THE VERY PEOPLE THEY ARE OPPRESSING.

Then we have women so eager to please that they don't even realise they are being tricked into being complicit in their own oppression.

#fuckoffwithyourbekindbullshit

We see you

Is that a threat @RottenRowGal? It actually made me feel really creeped out and unsafe.

It's funny isn't it that offence being taken at language is only allowed one way. 🤔

We just don’t want to be recategorised into a subset of men types

You aren’t. You are asking trans women to be categorised into a subset of men types.

Fuck that!! I am a woman, not one of a subset of women who are not TW.

Why is it that someone can say I don’t want to offend transwomen

But laugh wildly when talking about doing the same to women?

I’m finding it odd for someone who says they write academic papers. The inability to debate and discuss with women.

@Bizawit

We just don’t want to be recategorised into a subset of men types

You aren’t. You are asking trans women to be categorised into a subset of men types.

Of course. Because they are men!!

@Bizawit

We just don’t want to be recategorised into a subset of men types

You aren’t. You are asking trans women to be categorised into a subset of men types.

But trans women are men. So yes.

@ErrolTheDragon honestly I would, but there is no one here who genuinely wants to discuss alternative definitions of woman. They just want to shout about how a woman is an adult,
Female , human, and how that is unambiguous and clear (regardless of the biological and social realities of human societies), and get really, really angry with people who refuse to conform to that narrow understanding.

@RottenRowGal

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.

I wish there was a like button for this

Because they are men

So should I have just lumped them into my category of men? How would I distinguish them from “cis” (sorry offensive!) men? Or would you just rather no data was collected about them as a separate category at all ? 🤔

@Rainbowshit

It's funny isn't it that offence being taken at language is only allowed one way. 🤔

Agreed

No thank you.

I doubt anyone beyond a tiny cadre of genderologists and sex denialists will be interested in the paper any way based on this premise

alternative definitions of woman.

[quote Bizawit]@ErrolTheDragon honestly I would, but there is no one here who genuinely wants to discuss alternative definitions of woman. They just want to shout about how a woman is an adult,
Female , human, and how that is unambiguous and clear (regardless of the biological and social realities of human societies), and get really, really angry with people who refuse to conform to that narrow understanding.[/quote]
I genuinely would like to hear an alternative definition. I'm not angry, just bemused that anyone can reject a sensible definition which really does work without being able to articulate a good alternative. How can you write a paper about 'women' (in your view including transwomen, presumably) without being able to do that?

I see this ended up in the naughty corner

YABU how about we keep the word women and anyone else can come up with their own word?

@Bizawit

Because they are men

So should I have just lumped them into my category of men? How would I distinguish them from “cis” (sorry offensive!) men? Or would you just rather no data was collected about them as a separate category at all ? 🤔

Are you being deliberately obtuse? They are TW (TM would be a better description as they are men who are trans). Adult human females are women, no other descriptor needed.

@terryleather

No thank you.

Was that in response to my question about collecting data on trans women?

@ElliottSmithsfingers I think we are going around in circles now.

@Bizawit

Because they are men

So should I have just lumped them into my category of men? How would I distinguish them from “cis” (sorry offensive!) men? Or would you just rather no data was collected about them as a separate category at all ? 🤔

It entirely depends upon the purpose of your research. Does the level of transition impact your research? E.g. hormones, surgery etc. So those groups might need separate categories. And do you have biological women in your research who don’t “identify” as women or as trans? So, they might need separate categories.