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.

@Bizawit

We see you

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

Oh give over

@VladmirsPoutine

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

It wasn’t a comparison between trans women and BME women, it was an illustration about how we use language to define demographic categories.

Saying I was in anyway comparing the two groups is a malicious and wilful attempt to derail the conversation/ miss the point. It also makes no sense.

Annnyways like I said, I’m out.

YANBU. I'm a cis woman. I have friends who are women but are biologically male. I have friends who are biologically female and identify as women. They're both women
So you are biologically a woman but calls yourself a "cis woman". Your friends who are biologically male are "women". Why??

If Bizawit truly believes that " woman" is merely a gender identity descriptor and not a description of sex , then they have s really easy way to distinguish the two groups: female women and male women. Simple.

@WhatATimeToBeAlive

YABU. I am a woman. End of.

Same here.

I don’t really feel safe in this space

So you can understand why many women don’t feel safe in spaces with biological men, then?

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.

It wouldn’t be like that at all.

You are talking as though it is a settled matter that transwomen are included in the group “women”.

It really isn’t.

Can’t quote Bizawit’s post above but, no it was not me missing the point.

You said it would be “problematic” to have two categories “women” and “BAME women” in a similar way to how you find it problematic to have two categories “women” and “transwomen.”

Transwomen are not a subset of women. BAME women very much are. You know, when you actually consider facts, not feelings.

You can’t put people into two categories if they would fall into both, as a BAME woman would in your example. However nobody falls into both categories of “women” and “transwomen”.

You shouldn’t have made the comparison. You’re supposed to be writing an academic paper, so you should be able to realise this.

Bit puzzled that I was told to fuck off earlier (I think)

I have been saying upthread that I prefer to be called just a "woman"

I still don't think "natal" as a prefix has nearly as many problems as cis- and JK Rowling has used it herself in discussing sex and gender issues - below.

Do you guys generally think that it is out of the question to use "natal"? In the sort of context JKR does?

www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

However nobody falls into both categories of “women” and “transwomen”

According to you!!!! But this isn’t how other people use/ understand language.

If I am writing an academic paper I have to ensure that as many people as possible understand what I mean!

(Sorry I know I said I was leaving).

If I am writing an academic paper I have to ensure that as many people as possible understand what I mean!

Indeed. Which is why I'm (still) puzzled you are using the word woman but don't seem to be able to explain what you want it to convey.

If you stick to the standard definition in terms of sex, then it really is likely to be understood accurately by more people than if you use it in some undefined (undefineable?) manner.

However nobody falls into both categories of “women” and “transwomen”.

I can see that if you use ‘woman’ only to refer to gender you could be in both categories. The problem is that it’s not clear what the people in that category share, except maybe a belief in gender. It’s not clear when it would be relevant.

You've really got some work to do on making sure as many people as possible understand you.

If I am writing an academic paper I have to ensure that as many people as possible understand what I mean!

Which you are doing the complete opposite of with your ridiculous mangling of language.

male women

But at what point do we stop using language like acrobats and just stick to definitions

If I am writing an academic paper I have to ensure that as many people as possible understand what I mean!

You are assuming that the majority of your readers would see “women” and assume the term referred to gender identity and so included male people. What makes you think that’s how the majority interpret “women”?

I guess this paper is aimed squarely at the language-mangling, meaning-obfuscating Butlerian gender-woo acolytes.

@Bizawit

However nobody falls into both categories of “women” and “transwomen”

According to you!!!! But this isn’t how other people use/ understand language.

If I am writing an academic paper I have to ensure that as many people as possible understand what I mean!

(Sorry I know I said I was leaving).

You are not doing this though.

There is another issue that you have to be very brave to write something that does not wholeheartedly support the current woke orthodoxy (and has your actual name on it).

i think that is a real problem.

I feel bloody sorry for anyone stuck with the job of translating this academic paper into another language.

What do I do if my target language only has a word for "adult female humans" and it doesn't have a word for "female humans and male humans who want everyone to treat them as female"?

Male women and female women would be translatable, at least.

I am no more cis than I am a sinner or infidel. Those things are not a part of my own beliefs.

Nope

@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?

Can I be blunt?

You have missed the core issues by a country mile.

Women, female is all we need.

If there were any real need for additional words then you would see them equally applied to men and women, male and female services. You don't. So...

Women are women; female

Transwomen are transwomen; male

Men are men; male

Transmen are transmen; female

As a common courtesy we might refer to transmen and women by their gendered expression, but that wouldn't change their sex.

Sex remains the same for the whole of your life, pre and post birth, so 'natal sex' is a nonsensical statement. It just adds to the blurred lines being created - all of which have a negative impact only upon women.

Some women don't see it, possibly because they are still being nice

Some men do see it, possibly because they have a more visceral reaction to the possibility of a penis in a female space.

But, in short, we women cannot agree to relabel ourselves, making being female a subset of women, because the ramifications would spread throughout all aspects of life, from healthcare to sport, education to leisure facilities.

So no... natal birth is not a solution.

Without establishing from the beginning what you mean by the word woman, then nobody will understand your paper. Unfortunately if you move the meaning of woman from ," adult human female" to " a person of any sex who identifies with gendered stereotypes which society demands of the female human", then things get complicated. If you can't use transwoman and woman, then the only other option is male woman and female woman. However, if you wish to be totally accurate you could use human female and human male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.