Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

AIBU to actually be starting to like the term cis?

671 replies

newnameday · 28/09/2021 10:24

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
MarshaBradyo · 28/09/2021 16:25

@Fitt

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.

Agreed
DoNotGetADog · 28/09/2021 16:25

Bizawit, I find your comparison between BAME women and transwomen really offensive actually.

Women of colour are women, just as much as white women are. Transwomen are men - not a subset of women, the opposite of women. I don’t know how you can possibly make that comparison and be in the position of writing an academic paper that you expect anyone to take notice of.

ElliottSmithsfingers · 28/09/2021 16:26

No, you are, else you are on a wind up. I am more than clear.

Bizawit · 28/09/2021 16:26

@ElliottSmithsfingers that was of doing things might be clear to you but it wouldn’t be clear to a lot of people who don’t share your ideological position. Calling trans women , trans men would be particularly confusing. Language is shared and we need to use it descriptively to be able to communicate properly.

herecomesthsun · 28/09/2021 16:27

@Fitt

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.

I dunno

The Lancet might be interested?

Newnewnew1179 · 28/09/2021 16:27

[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’m not shouting or angry but I don’t believe there are alternative definitions of the word woman. It means adult human female and I think that’s a biological and social reality.

I’m interested to know what your preferred definition of the word woman is and if the definition includes trans woman then definition of trans woman because whenever I see this taken to it’s logical conclusion it just seems to get horrendously complicated and unclear in a way that I don’t think benefits anyone.

Whatsnewpussyhat · 28/09/2021 16:27

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

Stop gaslighting females into thinking they have any sort of 'privilege' over adult males who want to 'identify as' women.
Females have always been, and continue to be, used and abused by males because of our SEX. Now you tell us our female bodies are a privilege because some males want what they can't have?

Do you think the very privileged white, rich, middle aged male who was allowed to take the gold medal in a weightlifting competition from a young, abused, poor female of colour is in any way oppressed?

There is NO need to add a prefix to women to say they are 'not trans' at all.

JaneJeffer · 28/09/2021 16:27

there is no one here who genuinely wants to discuss alternative definitions of woman
There's nothing to discuss. Look in the dictionary.

Bizawit · 28/09/2021 16:27

I find your comparison between BAME women

Totally manipulative comment and a deliberate attempt to maliciously undermine the conversation.

DoNotGetADog · 28/09/2021 16:28

Yes, ElliotSmith, I was just about to say this. I think the terms for trans people are confusing and the wrong way round. Trans men for men who think they are women would be much clearer.

ElliottSmithsfingers · 28/09/2021 16:29

[quote Bizawit]@ElliottSmithsfingers that was of doing things might be clear to you but it wouldn’t be clear to a lot of people who don’t share your ideological position. Calling trans women , trans men would be particularly confusing. Language is shared and we need to use it descriptively to be able to communicate properly.[/quote]
Biological facts are not an ideological position ffs

Bizawit · 28/09/2021 16:31

Anyways I’m out. particularly after the “we see you” comment, I don’t really feel safe in this space, or believe this to be a constructive conversation.

Enjoy your echo chamber!

merrymouse · 28/09/2021 16:32

Trans means somebody who feels that their gender identity doesn’t align with their sex. ‘Cis’ means somebody who feels their gender identity does align with their sex.

Neither term is relevant to people who don’t believe it’s necessary to categorise identity according to gendered expectations of behaviour and appearance. By all means use ‘Cis’ for people who do think their identity in some way matches their sex, but don’t assume it is generally relevant.

You should also be aware that ‘woman’ and ‘man’ can be used to refer solely to biological sex.

DoNotGetADog · 28/09/2021 16:33

@Bizawit

I find your comparison between BAME women

Totally manipulative comment and a deliberate attempt to maliciously undermine the conversation.

Absolute bollocks and you should realise that. You made the comparison, I didn’t make it up.
MarshaBradyo · 28/09/2021 16:35

@Bizawit

Anyways I’m out. particularly after the “we see you” comment, I don’t really feel safe in this space, or believe this to be a constructive conversation.

Enjoy your echo chamber!

Not a well argued position. Do no not constructive at all.

Particularly inability to listen and debate.

Bizawit · 28/09/2021 16:36

I’ll just jump in quickly to respond to @Newnewnew1179 who seemed to genuinely want to engage. I see your point and would be happy to share my thoughts via DM if you are genuinely interested.

merrymouse · 28/09/2021 16:36

I don’t really feel safe in this space

It’s a moderated anonymous on line forum. If that is your idea of ‘not safe’, I’m not sure what you think safe means. However don’t go near threads on the royal family. They are much more combative than this.

Waitwhat23 · 28/09/2021 16:36

The wholesale amending of language to be more 'inclusive' has been staggering - people who menstruate, those who have a cervix, (the truly awful) birthing bodies, vulva havers etc etc. Any one who has objected to this has been simply pilled on (JRK as an obvious example) and companies have been harangued into changing their language. This has all culminated in the Lancet's dehumanising 'bodies with a vagina' which has made a lot of people start to question what is going on. All these words and terminology have changed because of pressure from special interest lobby groups. Women haven't been allowed to take offence at the language used to describe women without finding themselves the subject of threats.

But only women's language. The Lancet itself referred to men in a tweet about prostate cancer only 4 days before the infamous 'bodies with vaginas' tweet. When a poster on a previous thread stated that men's language is being changed too, the sole example of 'inclusive' language being used in respect to men we could collectively find was Prostate Cancer UK, who have a list of the people who have a prostate but then used men throughout the rest of their website.

All this 'inclusiveness' is one sided. It's a misogynistic attack on the language women use to refer and describe themselves.

ElliottSmithsfingers · 28/09/2021 16:39

@Bizawit

Anyways I’m out. particularly after the “we see you” comment, I don’t really feel safe in this space, or believe this to be a constructive conversation.

Enjoy your echo chamber!

You won't be missed, your contributions were nonsensical
viques · 28/09/2021 16:39

@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 isn’t that what transwomen are? Biological men who have decided that they are transwomen? Therefore a subset of men . Similarly transmen are biologically a subset of women who have decided they are men.

There are also subsets of biological women who are lesbian, and those who say they are non binary. And equally subsets of men who are gay men and non binary. And so on........

But it is our biology that defines our universal set, and that is immutable . Within the set you are born into , XX or XY, you can tweak the vocabulary, the lifestyle, the gender choices ,the chemical or surgical modifications, the sexuality - but those chromosomes ain’t going nowhere.

This is not to deny anyone their humanity, or their dignity or descry their choices, but we need to stop pretending that you can change sex at will, or through drugs and or surgery.

VladmirsPoutine · 28/09/2021 16:40

How can the conversation have arrived at comparisons regarding BAME women. head desk

DeborahAnnabel · 28/09/2021 16:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Bizawit · 28/09/2021 16:41

@merrymouse

I don’t really feel safe in this space

It’s a moderated anonymous on line forum. If that is your idea of ‘not safe’, I’m not sure what you think safe means. However don’t go near threads on the royal family. They are much more combative than this.

I know - it wasn’t rational. I think it was just the “we see you comment”. Precisely as this is supposed to be an anonymous forum it just felt really creepy. 😢

Lol on the royal family. I can’t only imagine.

BiBabbles · 28/09/2021 16:42

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.

So how are you handling gender diverse groups that oppose the trans/cis binary model being applied to them?

How are you handling the different perspectives on gender and gender dysphoria where there is no trans or cis?

I would think that would give ideas on how to handle the issue of how to categorize people - that's part of the benefit of looking at multiple models.

For alternative phrasing, I've used female phenotype and male phenotype when I've needed to be clear about the biology involved - no one found it vague, exhausting, or derailing but I've used that mainly in writing for those with a strong background in behavioural ecology. What language you use depends on your audience. Some may like trans/cis as standard, others find it out of date and anglo/academic-centric.

Waitwhat23 · 28/09/2021 16:42

Safe space 🙄

I'm sure we'll see a poorly argued, nonsensical blog post about women and non trans women kicking about the Internet soon.