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.

@Whatsnewpussyhat

Also someone will be along to say that just because you have reproductive organs, doesn't guarantee offspring, which is true. But it doesn't automatically discount the possibility of having a baby naturally. I don't think it's transphobic for someone to seek a partner they can naturally have babies with, if they are physically able to

A lot of the children put on blockers and cross sex hormones will be made sterile. The 'solution' given to them possibly wanting children in the future is that they can just buy a uterus haver to use as a human incubator. Simple eh?

Aren't we heading somewhere lovely?!

[quote BiscuitKitten]@newnameday I’ve read and enjoyed the whole thread. Particularly the S Club 7 reference.

Nothing novel to add, except maybe that it makes me think of cis and trans fatty acids. (And can imagine some gender identity ideologists interpreting this as my commenting on their weight.)

Like most, I think cis is an offensive term.[/quote]
😂 thanks.

I've never heard of cis fatty acids and never made the link with trans fatty acids, probably as I don't really use the terminology.

But it's definitely an interesting link!

@NiceGerbil

Oh thanks for the compliment!

The recent post from OP outlining concerns to do with heterosexual dating in the future seemed like a very strange thing to focus on with this general topic. To be anyway!

And the OP felt your ten (fairly long) posts with no other interaction from anyone were a bit strange, especially some parts, but there we go. Everyone has different opinions.

@FlyingOink

Oh and the going on gay sites etc because you ID as lesbian or a gay man. IE you are opposite sex attracted and trying to get dates with homosexual people. That's really bad. Again I imagine that TM are less likely to be doing this.

Sadly they're doing it a fair bit too. One transman kicked off at not being allowed in a gay sauna (that was only licensed for male nudity or something). They're all over grindr, looking very much like girls with blue hair half the time. I mean, they're less of a physical threat but there's every sign that gay men are suffering from a total lack of respect for their spaces too.

Yep, I've heard about it. This is quite worrying to me. And gay people being called transphobic if they won't date someone of the opposite sex who is trans.

@Bizawit nbody threatened ypu. And, if you were honest, you would change the word unpleasant too. The views you are reading are not unpleasant, they just do not coincicde with your own,.

You see words matter. You set up an entierly false narrative when you say that posting here is threatening and unpleasant when you mean challenging and robust.

My original point was that the word “cis” is simply a descriptor to differentiate between trans and non-trans women.

And you have ignored the fact that women don't want to be be 'not something else'. We are women. The origin, the root, the fons et origo. If you are indeed an academic you will understand that! After all, you wouldn't call your computer a not-notepad, would you?

Sometimes it’s necessary to distinguish between these groups.

Yes, women and transwomen. Simple.

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”

Except it is.

1. it is nonsensical
2. Women object - and as this is all about self identity why the hell can women not self identify, devise their own nomenclature?

Doesn't that show you that everything you, the TRA demands, regarding the word woman is abusive, controlling, domineering and wrong? You want to write about somethng but in order to do so in the way you want you must remove the agency of one of the cohorts you are writing about. THAT shouldn't get passed ethics, ever!

It is not about prioritising one group over the other.

Except in every case, on this thread, you have put transwomen first, before whatever mealy mouthed descriptor you choose to give women. That isn't how it works. The usual listing procedure is clear, ingredients, biggest first, authors of an academic paper, most senior first.

Women
Any other subset of women: black, tall, fat, blonde

And then, if you must, transwomen* right at the end of th list because there are fewer of them than any other type of woman

If you were to use your own 'system' anywhere else in your writing you would be corrected, demerited, set straight - so here I am, setting you straight!

• Of course, to entirely correct that would be transmen, seeing as they actually are women.

Transwomen would be at the end of the types of Man!

Happy to help a fellow academic!

I found the laughing at women’s offence pretty unpleasant tbh

I think that poster has a weak argument so is using excuses to leave rather than thinking about why women have an issue with the approach

Men get far more time on it

And the OP felt your ten (fairly long) posts with no other interaction from anyone were a bit strange, especially some parts, but there we go. Everyone has different opinions.

OP, I know you started the thread and it’s been a good one, but you are doing an unusual amount of policing what people are allowed to say - comments after you’ve changed your mind, comments that are too long, too many comments, etc.

I think once you’ve started the debate you don’t really “own” it in the way you seem to want to. Why not just relax and let people say what they want to?

I understand that some of you would like trans women to be excluded from the category “woman” altogether

It's transwomen (noun, plural). And yes, because they're adult human males.

I understand that some of you would like trans women to be excluded from the category “woman” altogether

Yes, because transwomen are men. Males, in every cell of their bodies.

Don't misunderstand this for erasure, saying trans people do not exist or any other of the usual guff.

Just accept that, as women, as educated women, we are fully aware of the reality of trans people. That we would use other words to describe their reality, the conflicts between the two cohorts, but would get deleted, censured and banned here - we are under some quite strict guidelines so as not to cause offence and that means saying what we menan plainly is often impossible.

@DoNotGetADog

And the OP felt your ten (fairly long) posts with no other interaction from anyone were a bit strange, especially some parts, but there we go. Everyone has different opinions.

OP, I know you started the thread and it’s been a good one, but you are doing an unusual amount of policing what people are allowed to say - comments after you’ve changed your mind, comments that are too long, too many comments, etc.

I think once you’ve started the debate you don’t really “own” it in the way you seem to want to. Why not just relax and let people say what they want to?

Someone says that they found my post strange. I feel allowed to say that I found their posting style strange. If you see, I didn't say anything at all through all their posts, until they said something about my comment being strange. So I didn't really police anything. I just said my piece.

And, again, the comments that were made to/at me, telling me I was unreasonable, I was allowed (in my opinion) to comment and state that, if they read it, they would see I had changed my position and therefore didn't need to be told, again, that I was unreasonable.

I don't see how either of these responses are "policing" and I haven't been telling people they can't post or can't say anything, I'm just giving my response to things aimed at me.

Don't know why someone is allowed to say I'm strange and I'm supposed to sit quietly and not respond? I never once said "this person should leave the post and not post their comments" I would have found the posting style strange on any post, whether or not I started it.

[quote CuriousaboutSamphire]@Bizawit nbody threatened ypu. And, if you were honest, you would change the word unpleasant too. The views you are reading are not unpleasant, they just do not coincicde with your own,.

You see words matter. You set up an entierly false narrative when you say that posting here is threatening and unpleasant when you mean challenging and robust.

My original point was that the word “cis” is simply a descriptor to differentiate between trans and non-trans women.

And you have ignored the fact that women don't want to be be 'not something else'. We are women. The origin, the root, the fons et origo. If you are indeed an academic you will understand that! After all, you wouldn't call your computer a not-notepad, would you?

Sometimes it’s necessary to distinguish between these groups.

Yes, women and transwomen. Simple.

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”

Except it is.

1. it is nonsensical
2. Women object - and as this is all about self identity why the hell can women not self identify, devise their own nomenclature?

Doesn't that show you that everything you, the TRA demands, regarding the word woman is abusive, controlling, domineering and wrong? You want to write about somethng but in order to do so in the way you want you must remove the agency of one of the cohorts you are writing about. THAT shouldn't get passed ethics, ever!

It is not about prioritising one group over the other.

Except in every case, on this thread, you have put transwomen first, before whatever mealy mouthed descriptor you choose to give women. That isn't how it works. The usual listing procedure is clear, ingredients, biggest first, authors of an academic paper, most senior first.

Women
Any other subset of women: black, tall, fat, blonde

And then, if you must, transwomen* right at the end of th list because there are fewer of them than any other type of woman

If you were to use your own 'system' anywhere else in your writing you would be corrected, demerited, set straight - so here I am, setting you straight!

• Of course, to entirely correct that would be transmen, seeing as they actually are women.

Transwomen would be at the end of the types of Man!

Happy to help a fellow academic! [/quote]
This is exactly it. Perfect thanks 😊

It’s more a cumulative thing than that one example tbh.

They also did not say you were strange, just that the dating element was “a strange thing to focus on.”

Mostly, it was the fact that you didn’t want people to join in the conversation and say that no, they didn’t like the term “cis,” just because you had now changed your mind. I don’t think the vast majority of people were actually personally attacking you, just giving their opinions, which is surely the point of these threads. It’s not really all about you.

I rather like NiceGerbil's posting style - it's a kind of stream of consciousness but there's always loads of good points and it's interesting to see her train of thought.

I find it quite interesting to see everyone's different posting styles - even when people name change, it's sometimes possible to make an educated guess at to their previous username (not in a weird way! Just in a kind of wondering way)

I agree with a pp that the conversation has perhaps moved on from the original post and is now more a general conversation. If there's 'unreasonable' comments, I think it's more about the cis thing in general, rather than your original standpoint, OP.

@DoNotGetADog

Mostly, it was the fact that you didn’t want people to join in the conversation and say that no, they didn’t like the term “cis,” just because you had now changed your mind. I don’t think the vast majority of people were actually personally attacking you, just giving their opinions, which is surely the point of these threads. It’s not really all about you.

We're going around in circles so I'll say my last bit on this.

Not once did I have a problem with people saying "I also have an issue with cis because..."

I had an issue with people stating just "YABU" when I already admitted it multiple posts ago and they weren't adding anything else to the conversation (as the Y means "you" it was aimed at me). Or when they were saying "you can call yourself cis" (again you) when I already said I wouldn't be using it. It was no longer needed by then.

Everyone who has given reasons against cis being used in general terms, not directed at me still being adamant to use it, I have read and taken the information in. I've also been grateful for the information provided. Just not being told I'm unreasonable or I can use cis when I've already retracted on both.

As mentioned, this is going round in circles as I don't agree with you and you don't seem to see my point so I'm stepping back from this discussion before it turns silly.

@Waitwhat23

I rather like NiceGerbil's posting style - it's a kind of stream of consciousness but there's always loads of good points and it's interesting to see her train of thought.

I find it quite interesting to see everyone's different posting styles - even when people name change, it's sometimes possible to make an educated guess at to their previous username (not in a weird way! Just in a kind of wondering way)

I agree with a pp that the conversation has perhaps moved on from the original post and is now more a general conversation. If there's 'unreasonable' comments, I think it's more about the cis thing in general, rather than your original standpoint, OP.

That's fair enough and maybe on some topics, I may agree but in the midst on conversations, there was something about it that I didn't enjoy.

Again, fair but I don't see the need to post I'm being unreasonable when I admitted it. They could say, as many posters have, "I don't want to be labelled cis" I just find the constant "YABU" when we've moved on a bit unnecessary. That's my thoughts and I should be allowed to express my response like they are able to express theirs.

But you posted it in “AIBU!!” (originally). That’s literally the whole purpose - you post something and ask AIBU? and then everyone says that you are whether they think you are or not. There’s not a time limit, and they can still say what they think even if you’ve changed your mind.

Prepared to be told IABU
Your first post on the thread @newnameday

"There is a long history of white, middle class women trying to police the boundaries of the category woman."

How fuckin' dare you announce that working class women can't possibly be engaged in this conversation and have their own opinions.
There're many working class women who have thought about this and are holding their ground and plenty of working class men who support them.

What kind of feminist are you that holds the bigoted belief that working class women haven't the intelligence to think this through for themselves?

Get ta fuck and keep going and take your bigoted paranoia with you.

"There is a long history of white, middle class women trying to police the boundaries of the category woman."

No, there is a long history of men coming up with bullshit to explain why women don’t need rights.

This particular bullshit assumes that the world does not exist outside North America, feminists are all white and middle class, and worst of all, that it is somehow difficult to define the sex of women who are not white. Please take your racism elsewhere.

Yeah, apparently only white people reject gender ideology

The 'white middle class' put down is always used to silence the other side, and very disingenuous. Anyone who thinks it's only white people is ironically probably in a homogenous white area, because I assure you myself and many other non white people (religious or not) would reject the word 'cis'

Only white people reject gender identity 🙄🤣🤣🤣 tell that to people of various religions and cultures.... many still see women as second class and reject many many modern ideas of sexuality let alone gender!

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.

No!! We can tell! We can always tell.

I do wonder if some trans women would identify as women in places like Afghanistan where being a woman denies you an education, jobs and freedom to move without an escort.

I suspect a fair few wouldn't...

@00100001

I do wonder if some trans women would identify as women in places like Afghanistan where being a woman denies you an education, jobs and freedom to move without an escort.

I suspect a fair few wouldn't...

Now there's an interesting viewpoint... I'm now intrigued.