A thought about 'cis'

[Fleek]

I was just lying in bed thinking last night and wanted to share what popped into my head with people. I'm sure this has occurred to others (everyone else?) because it's pretty obvious but I haven't seen it written down explicitly anywhere else.

It's about the word 'cis.' Activists are so insistent we use that term ourselves and are labelled that. I've seen women be very articulate about why they hate it and I've nodded along with everything written. All the stuff about how I don't 'identify' as a woman, I am one because of my sexed body, and about how we don't want to be tied to any gender stereotypes that redefine being female as having swishy hair or loving housework or being submissive, etc. etc.

But there is another layer to it. The mantra is transwomen ARE women. If TWAW, then why would this movement want to force a label on us that actually distinguishes us from TW? Surely that's an own goal?

I think actually, it's a way of forcing us into being seen as/taking the position of oppressors. We aren't being branded as 'cis' in order to separate us as just a different type of woman (like the awful way they use 'disabled woman, black woman, trans woman') or just to change the idea of woman into being a gender and not a sex, it's also about firmly telling us we have privilege and are on a higher rung than TW. If we look at oppression Olympics generally, the only way to be a good citizen is to make supplication by publicly labelling your privilege isn't it? Saying 'I'm inadvertently an oppressor but I renounce my sin.' If you are an oppressor it's your job to shut up and sit in the corner. It's your job to hand over your power. You also need punishing, perhaps, if you take this idea to absolute extremes - threatening with violence, assaulting, eliminating, even? Look at Twitter handles. One vocal American actress had on hers for a long while (it might be there still) - 'I punch Nazis'. It's vital we are segregated by this label 'cis' so we can have some of the power we've gained over the last 50 years stripped from us.

It just interested me to think about it.

dunno why

I know you don't know why. It's the same reason you're shocked and saddened I used the phrase Foxtrot Oscar - which was not incidentally used in the sense you're implying it was. It's because you appear absolutely unable to read and understand what any woman here tries to explain to you. Particularly if saying something you don't agree with.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

The good news is that we are both agreed on the pronunciation.

I am curious as to whether he's enough of a purist to scream in anguish when he hears it pronounced as in Sistine Chapel. But that's a discussion point for later this morning.

The bit on pronunciation left most of us none the wiser. However, in the one context where Cis- is commonly used nowadays ie chemistry, it's pronounced 'sis'. So I'd have said that's it's accepted pronunciation in modern English regardless of what may be the case in Latin itself.

@GreenAndPurplePeople

If you answer the question "are you a woman?" "yes", that's your gender identity.

But that’s not what you originally said. You posted a link to a paper that gives an accepted definition of gender identity. Now, you’ve changed your mind and given another definition. Why is that?

No. One is the definition, the other is the answer to the question "how do I know what my gender identity is?" One follows from the other.

For example, with sexuality. The defintion
"a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are typically attracted; sexual orientation."

The question:
"Are you attracted to men, women, both, or neither?"

@Tomatalillo
"If I turned up to operate on you, say for a vasectomy, put a camera up your urethra or to conduct a heart transplant, would you let me go ahead if said I feel like a surgeon, I identity as a surgeon, oh but I am not qualified and have no recognised training?

If not why not?"

The word identify has two meanings.

"establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is."

"associate someone or something closely with; regard as having strong links with."

The "identity" in gender identity is meaning one.
The "identity" in your example is meaning two.

@Delphinium20
"Reminds me of a lesson I was taught as a young girl in a religious school. But we were talking about souls. While the concept of souls was almost universally recognized by Christians, this lesson was a way to show that the non-Christian souls were lost to Satan. But then I grew up and stopped believing in souls, but I'm sure that doesn't stop some Christians from thinking I still have a soul and that my soul is lost"

It's more the other way round. Sexuality and gender identity are well-established, and found to be heritiable and innate in twin studies. Not believing in gender identity or sexuality requires an pseudo-religious (and often religious) commitment to an ideology, in this case biological essentialism and gender critical feminism.

@ Blibbyblobby

Before the terminology of sexuality existed, heterosexuals thought of themselves as normal, and that homosexuality was a perversion or abberation. Many people strongly resisted the term "heterosexual" because they thought of it as normal or natural. But no one would deny that people were gay or straight before the terminlogy was invented. Likewise, the people who get upset with the very neutral term "cis" are upset for similar reasons.

If you are cisgendered, there is no internal conflict between your sex assigned at birth and your gender identity, therefore you take your gender identity for granted, just as people took their heterosexuality for granted. The definition doesn't care whether you attribute your internal sense of sexuality or gender identity to the natural order of things or biology.

Not believing in gender identity requires an pseudo-religious (and often religious) commitment to an ideology,

You what?

@Artichokeleaves

Not believing in gender identity requires an pseudo-religious (and often religious) commitment to an ideology,

You what?

Here is the Catholic Church on the subject of gender identity. From the organisation which described homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered” and a “moral evil.” Unsurprisingly, they also think the gender identity "annihilates the concept of nature"

"The denial of this duality not only erases the vision of human beings as the fruit of an act of creation but creates the idea of the human person as a sort of abstraction who chooses for himself what his nature is to be."

"Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him."

You are in good company.

www.educatio.va/content/dam/cec/Documenti/19_0997_INGLESE.pdf

@DadJoke

Before the terminology of sexuality existed, heterosexuals thought of themselves as normal, and that homosexuality was a perversion or abberation. Many people strongly resisted the term "heterosexual" because they thought of it as normal or natural. But no one would deny that people were gay or straight before the terminlogy was invented. Likewise, the people who get upset with the very neutral term "cis" are upset for similar reasons.

If you are cisgendered, there is no internal conflict between your sex assigned at birth and your gender identity, therefore you take your gender identity for granted, just as people took their heterosexuality for granted. The definition doesn't care whether you attribute your internal sense of sexuality or gender identity to the natural order of things or biology.

Sorry, you are still missing the point.

Firstly, despite your bald assertions of gender identity as a given, the concept of everyone having a gender identity is not proven. It is simply the currently popular hypothesis to explain how trans people feel about themselves. So anything you state based on this assumption is simply an implication of the assumption and is only "real" to the extent that the original assumption is "real", which as I noted is not in any way proven.

Seondly, the fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality both exist says nothing whatsoever about the entirely different concept of gender. If you believe the situations are the same you can certainly use one as an illustration or an analogy for the other, but in itself a fact about sexuality prove nothing about gender. Again, logic fail.

Now, with the basic tenets properly clarified and caveated, I will get to the point:

The definition doesn't care whether you attribute your internal sense of sexuality or gender identity to the natural order of things or biology.

Nope, that doesn't follow. My "internal sense" of myself as a woman is entirely predicated on Woman being the name for my body type. So if that's not what the word Woman means, which by your definition it is not, then I am not a woman.

I don't have body dysmorphia so I don't feel my body is wrong, but I don't have a sense of "being" a woman any more than I have a sense of "being" short or "being" fat. While I am all those things, I am them only to the degree that they are labels for the outside not aspects of the inside.

I can entirely accept that another person with a female body may look at their body and feel that it is wrong and doesn't match them. I support their right to do what they can to alleviate their distress so long as it does not inflict distress on others or demand they accept labels or situations that are demeaning or oppressive. But I do not see how some individuals' distress with the body they have is proof of an overarching gender identity of Womanhood which is more significant in the physical world than the physical body and therefore should replace sex for all legal, social and physical purposes.

Sexuality and gender identity are well-established, and found to be heritiable and innate in twin studies. Not believing in gender identity or sexuality requires an pseudo-religious (and often religious) commitment to an ideology, in this case biological essentialism and gender critical feminism.

Sexuality has been proven to not be genetic/heritable or an innate condition:
“Late last month, a team of MIT and Harvard scientists published a landmark study of the genetic basis for sexual orientation in the journal Science. The study, which was based on an examination of the genetic material of almost half a million individuals, definitively refutes the idea that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one’s genetic makeup.” [Sept 2019]
www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/57342/

Furthermore, there is only speculation/belief that gender identity might be heritable or innate, but as of yet no genome sequencing study has been conducted.

Similarly, you are also by group two different concepts together attempting to argue that if sexuality exists, then so must gender identity, which is a bit like arguing that if horses gallop, then some of them must think they are unicorns. You are taking an observed behaviour...that if sexual attraction and conflating it with a concept regarding inner life/thoughts. And what could be more religious than a concept regarding inner life/thoughts?

@DadJoke
Sorry but what the Catholic Church think about gender identity is not proof of the existence of gender identity as anything other than another belief. In fact it actually underlines the fact that Catholics do not believe in gender identity. So there is a defined group of “nonbelievers”.

Here is the Catholic Church on the subject of gender identity.

Yeah, much as I respect your faith I'd suggest spending less time studying the Catholic Church and a bit more time reading what the women of wide ranges of faith, ability, sexuality etc here have to say if you want to understand what the issues actually are.

Before the terminology of sexuality existed, heterosexuals thought of themselves as normal, and that homosexuality was a perversion or abberation.

This is very Euro-centric and Christian dogma assuming. I’d argue that the majority of human populations did not agree with this viewpoint and saw all sexuality as normal and homosexuality not a perversion or aberration.

@DadJoke

*No, trans men and cis women are not subsets of women

I mean trans men are not a subset of women, sorry. Oh to be able to edit!

Between your slip of the logic and Plans thorough efforts with that Gordian Knot of logic I think we can all see that the whole trans cis thing is all indefensible twaddle

@PlanDeRaccordement it doesn't remotely surprise me that you a quoting a Catholic professor of sociology on this subject. Of course the Catholic Church wants homosexuality to be a choice.

When you read the actual paper it says "Twin studies and other analyses of inheritance of sexual orientation in humans has indicated that same-sex sexual behavior has a genetic component."

"Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many. Overlap with genetic influences on other traits provides insights into the underlying biology of same-sex sexual behavior, and analysis of different aspects of sexual preference underscore its complexity and call into question the validity of bipolar continuum measures such as the Kinsey scale."

They were searrching for specific genes, and made some progress, but this wasn't a paper about hereditabilty as such.

"While there is no single “gay gene,” there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain before birth based on a mix of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses."

Sexuality - your feeling of attraction towards a particular gender is independent of any action you might take. I use it as analogy, because it's something you accept which is an internal sense.

The fact that gender identity has a hereditable component shows that it is something real, or it would be entirely cultural. The fact we can't point at the genes concered is neither here nor there. Mendel demonstrated this.

@DadJoke

“says "Twin studies and other analyses of inheritance of sexual orientation in humans has indicated that same-sex sexual behavior has a genetic component.". Is referring to what prior studies have said, not this paper.

You missed the key statements...
“We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 477,522 individuals, revealing five loci significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior, only partially overlapped between males and females, and do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behavior.”

As in, no matter what genes matched, the person could still be heterosexual or homosexual.

The fact that gender identity has a hereditable component shows that it is something real.

Sorry, where is this proven to be fact?

I think we can all see that the whole trans cis thing is all indefensible twaddle

@HoardingSamphireSaurus
Well it certainly isn’t based on science or facts. It is firmly in the realm of inner thoughts/spirituality and as such should be classified as an emerging religious belief.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Before the terminology of sexuality existed, heterosexuals thought of themselves as normal, and that homosexuality was a perversion or abberation.

This is very Euro-centric and Christian dogma assuming. I’d argue that the majority of human populations did not agree with this viewpoint and saw all sexuality as normal and homosexuality not a perversion or aberration.

On the basis we are in Europe and living with the consequences of those views until recently, I think it's entirely pertinent. And it proves my point - trans identities have been widely accpted outside of European culture.

@PlanDeRaccordement the study was searching for candidates for genes associated with homosexuality. It says nothing about the well established degree of hereditabilty of homosexuality.

@Artichokeleaves as you well know I was quoting the Cathoic Church to demonstrate that gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science. The Church starts from the position that homosexuality and transgender people are against nature and works backwards.

The sad thing is that even if there a reliable objective test for gender identity, you would change your views.

This is a paper on the hereditabilty of gender identity.
www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2018-polderman.pdf

The fact that gender identity has a hereditable component

You dropped that "fact" in at the end of a piece discussing the hereditability of sexuality. Can you please provide a link to what you consider to be evidence that gender identity is hereditable?

Furthermore, even if a propensity to gender distress can be inherited, that is not proof of a universal quality of gender identity.

And finally, even if a universal quality of gender identity exists, that is not proof that it must therefore be more pertinent to society than physical sex, particularly in the context of a society that, even if acting on a false understanding of sex and gender, has nevertheless deeply encoded sex-based disadvantages.

If gender identity exists, it is far more logical to see it as a separate dimension to physical sex which also exists and significantly affects people's lives rather than some sort of "deeper" type of sex that must to all intents and purposes apply instead of sex, yet paradoxically while keeping the preexisting structures created for sex exactly the same other than switching over who they apply to.

DadJoke Gender identity is a very, very straightforward and almost universally recognised concept in psychology.

The concept is very widely recognised; your definition of it is not. Specifically the idea that it's innate, rather than acquired through socialisation. It encompasses the general awareness of being female or male in a given society, including expected social roles.

It seems bizarre to me that you have an almost religious resistance to the idea of it. Why would that be?

We are resistant to the idea that people should think/feel/behave a certain way because of their biological sex. Because it's sexism. Why should people be restricted in this way, not to mention the awful things that result (violent toxic masculinity, for example)?

You seem to forget that gender isn't randomly assigned at birth. Its assigned on the basis of (perceived) biological sex. The very concept of gender is sexist to its core.

gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science.

Not at all, it's the other way around. Obviously. Since the whole concept of gender identity is of a gendered soul, with the view of heresy for not participating in the faith and its tenets.

There are those of us who don't believe in it over objective reality and facts, or believe that anyone should be compelled to participate in a belief they do not hold, or have their language compelled to fit someone else's belief system. Or have to accept the assigning of a political label that enforces self identification in and participation in something they neither believe in nor agree with and find actively repressing.

Be who you want. Identify as you want. Dress how you want, name yourself as you want, go for it. I have no wish to control others (or their language or their labels or their self concepts) at all. However the limits of personal expression are other people's rights of the same.

I don't use the word cis. I won't use it or accept it being forcibly applied to me. I have no problem with someone using it to name themselves if they so choose in the path of their own personal beliefs. I'm not a believer myself.

[quote Piapiano]**@JustPassingThrough3* and @DadJoke* if cis women and trans women are both subcategories of woman, how do you categorise woman?[/quote]
I'm just going to repeat this question again as it seems that it is being ignored...

gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science Eh????

Such confusion.

Sex is identified at birth,
Gender assumed / assigned, based on our expectations of boy and girl babies.

I have no idea whether any degree of gender identity is innate, or acquired. Not for myself, or others.

But what difference does it make? Whether innate or acquired it is based in a body that physiologically cannot change sex.

I never wanted to be constrained by gender stereotypes and discrimination, hence becoming a feminist.

I don’t want Trans / GNC people to conform to any gender stereotype due to social pressure either.

But there are some cases where however much I will defend Trans peoples’ rights to live hassle and prejudice free, my sex-based rights are necessarily deserving of protecting.

@EdgeOfTheSky

gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science Eh????

Such confusion.

Sex is identified at birth,
Gender assumed / assigned, based on our expectations of boy and girl babies.

I have no idea whether any degree of gender identity is innate, or acquired. Not for myself, or others.

But what difference does it make? Whether innate or acquired it is based in a body that physiologically cannot change sex.

I never wanted to be constrained by gender stereotypes and discrimination, hence becoming a feminist.

I don’t want Trans / GNC people to conform to any gender stereotype due to social pressure either.

But there are some cases where however much I will defend Trans peoples’ rights to live hassle and prejudice free, my sex-based rights are necessarily deserving of protecting.

You've straightforwardly conflated gender identity with gender expression. Trans girls aren't trans because they wear dresses, they wear dresses because they want to fit in with other girls. There is social pressure on all girls to conform - that's not good, but it says nothing about gender identity. If societal pressure meant that boys wore skirts and girls wore trousers, trans girls would be wearing trousers.

Sex and gender identity are both real.

Sex-based rights are protected, and transgender people can be excluded if it's legitimate and proportionate. The default, however, in law is inclusion. Exclusion has to be justified on objective grounds.

gender critical beliefs are more aligned with religious beliefs than science

No, you've got that backwards: the gender critical approach relies on biology, not beliefs and feelings. Gender identity is more aligned to religious beliefs as it has no scientific basis.

“This is a paper on the hereditabilty of gender identity.
www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2018-polderman.pdf”

Ok, so this paper hypothesises that gender identity is influenced by genetics in a polygenic fashion. (This paper doesn’t say it is a fact):

“We have performed a comprehensive, structured lit- erature review on the heritability of gender identity, gender nonconformity, and related constructs to evaluate evidence that genetic influences are among the biological factors that influence variation in gender identity. We hypothesize that gender identity is a multifactorial complex trait with a her- itable polygenic component”

Within this paper, only two papers are referenced as having any evidence that gender identity is inheritable.

The first is
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Female Sexual Orientation, Childhood Gender Typicality and Adult Gender Identity, Burri 2011

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021982
They state
“Univariate genetic models indicated modest genetic influences on sexual attraction (25%), AGI (11%) and CGT (31%). ” [AGI= Adult Gender Identity.]

However, they sadly assessed gender identity by using a questionnaire purported to measure masculinity and femininity “Assessment of participants' self-concepts as masculine or feminine (AGI) was computed using four items comparable to those used by Bailey et al. [19]. Example items include “I don't feel very masculine” and “I pride myself on being feminine”.

So, there are a number of problems with this but the greatest one I see is that the questionnaire really only measures self-reported conformity to gender stereotypes. And we know from the orthodoxy that gender nonconforming/conforming have nothing to do with gender identity because people conform/nonconform for various reasons to include environmental and societal pressures. So, to use masculinity and feminity stereotypes and self reported conformance to these as a proxy for gender identity, fails at the first hurdle.

The second paper referenced is a bit older.
Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Bailey 2000

“Continuous Gender Identity.This scale (CGI) consisted of seven items taken from . The items assessed participants' self-concepts as masculine or feminine (e.g., “In many ways I feel more similar to women [men] than to men [women].”) using 7-point rating scales.”

Again the proxy of masculine vs feminine stereotypes to measure gender identity.

@PlanDeRaccordement

The fact that gender identity has a hereditable component shows that it is something real.

Sorry, where is this proven to be fact?

I can help with that, I had a protracted discussion with A N Other poster about it.

It is NOT a study that identifies a gene for trans, gay, gender etc. It is a group of studies that have identified a wide range and number of genetic areas that are common to people with a wide range of non conformity. Some studies looked at homosexuality and others at trans individuals and notes that there a a large number of small sections of the human genome that are common on those groups.

It doesn't mean they are causal. Or even that they might be predispositive. They don't know what they mean. One of them is in receptors to smells - hypothesis is that it could influence pheromone preferences.

That sort of thing. All current findings and general hypotheses are about 10 stages from being considered influential in anything, let alone sexuality or gender dysphoria etc.

It's just the continued exploration of the human genome - and the misrepresentation of any findings.

Tiresome!