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.

@EdgeOfACoin

What do all 'cis' women and transwomen have in common that they do not have in common with any men or transmen? What are the shared characteristics that unite all 'cis' women and transwomen?

This question has been asked over and over but never been answered.

Until someone can explain what unites all 'cis' women and transwomen under the umbrella of 'women', I will never accept the term 'cis'. I am not a subset of my own biological sex.

I've had this explained to me. It boils down to femininity and some internal gender sparkle.

So of course I point out that I'm a butch lesbian and have no femininity and no internal gender sparkle and I'm a woman.

And then I get told "you're probably a closeted transman".

Which is pretty much the same as when old-school homophobes tell me I'm "trying to be a man".

I'm not trying to be a man, there's a difference between a buzz cut and a cock.

there's a difference between a buzz cut and a cock

Well quite

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

I'm told you can say "trans women only" on Her. Or "cis women and trans women". So it's a deliberate decision on their part.

I can't fathom how this is even a thing!? So frustrating.

We've already seen males identifying as female, and vice versa so male/female have been appropriated

As we all predicted a few years ago.
They wanted the word woman, then they came for female.
Even if we created a new word for adult human females, they would demand that too.
It's about taking our ability to describe ourselves as separate to them. As a separate sex class with unique needs and rights.

@FlyingOink

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 Not RTFT (I am going to) but what's to stop a transwoman identifying as a cis woman or a transman identifying as a cis man?

We've already seen males identifying as female, and vice versa so male/female have been appropriated.

We could rename women as giraffes and some man will decide he wants that word too. It doesn't matter what language we choose to use (except it does, because there's a cost in terms of accessibility, comprehension, and the law) if identifying as something is accepted by some people as enough to be that thing.

Yeah I stupidly didn't realise that word could be taken.

It would be great if there was a word which, by definition meant "born female, with female body parts and lives as a female" it would be better if that word was "woman" and left as that.

@Sunflowers095

I don't define my entire existence by my chromosomes and I feel woman enough to not feel like my womanhood is threatened by other people wanting to describe themselves as female.

Some women in this thread seem really sad and pathetic to be honest - you don't like it when they are called "women" but you also don't want to be called a "cis woman" so essentially the only acceptable option to you is to exclude them and label them as "trans women". If your entire womanhood relies on your chromosomes then what are you really? An incubator essentially as that's the purpose of you having these chromosomes and associated reproductive organs. Congrats.

This is hilarious. Logically, your womanhood doesn't exist. If it doesn't describe a physical state of being, and instead describes a vague idea that nobody agrees on, then it doesn't exist. So when you lose out on a promotion to Dave, it's not because you're a woman and the company are worried you might waste time having pesky babies, it's because of some other reason. Because Dave has said he's a woman too, and his chromosomes and your pesky incubator status are irrelevant.

@Bizawit

I find your comparison between BAME women

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

It’s incredible how you’ll defend transwomen over and above women like this. It implies you understand sex far better than you pretend to.

I know. I get so frustrated for people when this happens. Especially when a 1K thread could be 300 posts abs allow people to actually read it

I've read it all now and although I get where you are coming from, there's a lot of weight to all those identical answers, which makes a statement in itself.

YABVU

If anyone called me cis in real life I would, at best, be polite. But I would hold them in utter contempt from that point.

@FlyingOink

I know. I get so frustrated for people when this happens. Especially when a 1K thread could be 300 posts abs allow people to actually read it

I've read it all now and although I get where you are coming from, there's a lot of weight to all those identical answers, which makes a statement in itself.

But why if all they are going to say is "you are being unreasonable" when I have already said "I am being unreasonable". There's no point to repeat that, follow the conversation for example "I also hate the word cis because..." but don't just go "you can call yourself cis" when I've already stated, multiple times, I will not be using the term cis.

Hope that makes sense. Repetition can be annoying but, as you said, cements a point.

But no need to reply directly to my first post when I've already added multiple messages to it.

And I really hope the poster after you is joking 🤦‍♀️ @windysocks 500+ replies I'm sure we've passed the stage of just "YABU/YABVU"

@bellinisurge

If anyone called me cis in real life I would, at best, be polite. But I would hold them in utter contempt from that point.

I'm pretty sure, in fact absolutely certain, the only time I've used cis in real life was when I was speaking to my husband about why it's bad (on a late night walk in 2020, so much has happened since then that I forgot the negative connotations) and explaining what it meant, in relation to a post on Mumsnet.

And then again today when I was reading the post about the husband with nail varnish, as it was in one of the OP's posts. Which was where this thought hit me.

So when you lose out on a promotion to Dave, it's not because you're a woman and the company are worried you might waste time having pesky babies, it's because of some other reason. Because Dave has said he's a woman too, and his chromosomes and your pesky incubator status are irrelevant.

As someone whose job was terminated while I was pregnant, this is exactly it. I can certainly see the loss of even more opportunities for females in employment with this as an option. For anyone saying, it will never happen… well I would have to say my job loss should never have happened either. Yet it did.

No thank you.

@naunet no idea what that comment means.

For all those continuing to mock me after I left:
I’m totally willing to engage in debate and don’t mind people disagreeing with me (although I do find the “ideas” and opinions expressed on this thread very unpleasant).

What I am not ok with: being accused of misogyny (laughable- I’m an ardent feminist), being told I’m gaslighting people, having my intelligence compared to a dead dog, being mocked for saying I was writing a paper, having my words deliberately twisted, being subject to creepy threats, etc.

Also, I am perfectly able to provide definitions of sex, gender, woman, trans woman, gender diversity etc, for anyone who is sincerely interested and committed to having a meaningful and constructive debate. I write on these subjects professionally. There is no lack of clarity here.

My original point was that the word “cis” is simply a descriptor to differentiate between trans and non-trans women. Sometimes it’s necessary to distinguish between these groups. In such contexts it is no more reasonable to be offended by the qualifier “cis” than it would be to be offended by the qualifier “trans”. I is not about prioritising one group over the other.

I understand that some of you would like trans women to be excluded from the category “woman” altogether- this is the real reason you are offended by the term “cis”- you wish to be the only women spoken of. I do not personally find that acceptable. There is a long history of white, middle class women trying to police the boundaries of the category woman. This article analyses it well.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.amp.html?fbclid=IwAR0xUOw2pSyvRdJqLioJawJ7ZIG9Fu6saQ7gqM34JjcVcX-Du5veNHBmbL8

There were no threats

And to be fair you kept popping back for a final last word so i doubt anyone knew you were actually gone

You are still trying to categorise different types of women by colour or class.
They are all just women

No still not on board with someone protecting men whilst laughing at women plus telling them why they feel that way.

It’s the worst

@Bizawit The NYtimes article is behind a paywall but whilst I can't get on board with the use of cis, I agree entirely with your assertion: "There is a long history of white, middle class women trying to police the boundaries of the category woman." For me personally the journey from anti-feminist to feminist to intersectional feminism was a scenic route to put it mildly.

you wish to be the only women spoken of
Well, women are the only women.

Seriously, though, there were actually no threats. There was a comment about seeing you in a non-literal sense, as in being aware of what they felt you were doing to women's rights. Nobody said they were watching you. And you know it.

You reached further than S Club 7 to make that a "threat".

I'm already in the naughty corner but I could liken this to someone who plays the victim a lot by twisting things to suit their narrative...

Woah let’s live and let live.

[quote Bizawit]@naunet no idea what that comment means.

For all those continuing to mock me after I left:
I’m totally willing to engage in debate and don’t mind people disagreeing with me (although I do find the “ideas” and opinions expressed on this thread very unpleasant).

What I am not ok with: being accused of misogyny (laughable- I’m an ardent feminist), being told I’m gaslighting people, having my intelligence compared to a dead dog, being mocked for saying I was writing a paper, having my words deliberately twisted, being subject to creepy threats, etc.

Also, I am perfectly able to provide definitions of sex, gender, woman, trans woman, gender diversity etc, for anyone who is sincerely interested and committed to having a meaningful and constructive debate. I write on these subjects professionally. There is no lack of clarity here.

My original point was that the word “cis” is simply a descriptor to differentiate between trans and non-trans women. Sometimes it’s necessary to distinguish between these groups. In such contexts it is no more reasonable to be offended by the qualifier “cis” than it would be to be offended by the qualifier “trans”. I is not about prioritising one group over the other.

I understand that some of you would like trans women to be excluded from the category “woman” altogether- this is the real reason you are offended by the term “cis”- you wish to be the only women spoken of. I do not personally find that acceptable. There is a long history of white, middle class women trying to police the boundaries of the category woman. This article analyses it well.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.amp.html?fbclid=IwAR0xUOw2pSyvRdJqLioJawJ7ZIG9Fu6saQ7gqM34JjcVcX-Du5veNHBmbL8[/quote]
I asked what your definitions of woman and trans woman were earlier in the thread and you offered to engage with me via DM. I don’t see any need to do that and as you say above you are perfectly able to provide definitions so if you could do that now then it might help us all understand each other’s position better.

There is a long history of white, middle class women trying to police the boundaries of the category woman.
Alison Bailey, Keira Bell, Sonia Appleby...... ??????

@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 ? 🤔

If you are in the UK, you could categorise them by following the language used in the Equality Act 2010: men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, with men defined as males of any age.

This acknowledges that this is a protected group, avoids confusion and is clear what sex you are discussing.

You could then subdivide that group (if needed, I'm not sure what you're collecting data on) into those with gender dysphoria and those without, into degree of transition, into legal status (GRC or not), age-related data points and so on. Whatever would be meaningful for the purpose of your paper.