Are the wife and children really fine?

[DancingBarefootOnIce]

A man I used to be close friends with recently came out as a transwoman on Facebook. I was a bit surprised as when I knew them in their 20s they were just a typical man. They’re now mid 30s and married to a woman with three children.

Anyway in their post the second sentence was something along the lines of “Don’t worry my wife and children are fine”. I’ve seen it before in stories like this or when someone comes out as gay.
It’s almost like there’s going to be an accusation of homophobia or transphobia if they’re not alright with it. It just doesn’t feel right. If my partner or father came out with something like that it would change so many things in thinking about past relationships etc.

@Changemaname1

Why do we need a new word to help identify biological women ? There is already one - women

Exactly. We have women who are women. And transwomen who are transwomen. We have men who are men. And transmen who are transmen.

Transwomen and transmen should not be ashamed of who they are. They should live their lives in peace. And if men give them any trouble, the police should act.

Ok. So in what situations might they need the prefix? And why?

Brave and stunning situations, or taking women's places in sporting competitions?

For what it's worth though, I don't care if you want to call yourself a ciswoman or the Mighty Mekon of Venus. But you don't get to dictate to us what we call ourselves and you certainly don't get to tell us that there's no such thing as a woman.

This. Not my meaningless in-group label, not my ideology, not my circus, not my monkeys.

I don't care if people want to use meaningless labels about me, it's quite useful and illuminating however to highlight the hypocrisy of the "respect my identity" brigade.

[quote Annette32123]@TeaKlaxon
But it’s a term you can only use to refer to people who identify as cis. If they don’t, you can’t.

I wouldn’t dream of telling someone I have decided they are trans. Or gay. Or disabled. Or white. Unless they believe they are those things, it would be deeply oppressive of me to force my interpretation of their identity onto them.

You are saying it’s ok for you to do that because it’s handy. That really isn’t a defence. Being too lazy to use someone’s preferred term isn’t ok.[/quote]
Disagree. There’s a difference between telling someone how they identify, and putting an accurate label on what they themselves tell us they identify as.

So it’s not my place to tell someone whether they are transgender or not. But if they say they are not transgender, then simply using an accurate word to describe that state of being is reasonable.

Now out of courtesy is someone really and in good faith said they didn’t want me to refer to them personally as cisgender, that’s fine. But anyone demanding I stop using the term altogether to refer to the broad group of people who are not transgender can sod off.

Do you respect those we want to be referred to as they/them but not when a woman doesn't want to be called a cis woman?

@DrSbaitso

In most situations they don’t.

Ok. So in what situations might they need the prefix? And why?

For example, in these discussions about trans issues we might need to distinguish between trans women and cis women when it comes to the rights each cohort should enjoy.

In the same way that in most contexts we don’t need to use the adjective disabled about some women and able bodied about others. But if we were discussing the impact of the cost of living on women, it might be useful to be able to say that disabled women are likely to feel the effects of the crisis more than able bodied women.

That doesn’t mean we have to distinguish between disabled and able bodied women in every context - but in contexts where the disability is a relevant issue it is helpful to be able to do so.

@OkPedro

Do you respect those we want to be referred to as they/them but not when a woman doesn't want to be called a cis woman?

Read the last para of my last post.

Ok, well I'm sure I'm not the only person who is asking you not to refer to me, or any group which includes me, by your ideological label based on a belief I do not share, any more than I accept i am a heretic or an infidel.

@TeaKlaxon - in which case why can;t the labels transwoman and woman apply?

For example, in these discussions about trans issues we might need to distinguish between trans women and cis women when it comes to the rights each cohort should enjoy

Then it would be women and transwomen.
Not really difficult to distinguish between the two sexes is it

I don't need to selfID as a woman, because I am. People are human beings with feelings, not feelings creating beings.

Nicely put.

May posters here have asked you not to use the term cis.. Why do you think they aren't asking in good faith?
IMO women and transwomen, men and transmen has been working quite well.

It's you who is using the term cis in "bad faith"

*Umm the only free speech issue I’ve seen here are people insisting I not use the word cis.

I couldn’t give a toss if you or anyone else uses it. It is an accurate and useful word in some contexts and if you actually give a shit about compelled speech you’d be addressing your criticism to people who try and prevent others from using the term.*

I mean, that's simply not true, is it?

If you’re not trans then you’re cis. Sorry about it. - Your words.

Which you used to refer to a group of people, many of whom have specifically asked you not to use it when referring to them.

Another poster has repeatedly stated that those who object to being referred to as cis are homophobic and transphobic and made parallels (poorly) with straight people saying that 'they're normal'.

I couldn't care less what you refer to yourself as. Literally couldn't care less. Call yourself Queen Ann of the Jigsaw Islands for all I care.

The discussion guidelines of this board (pinned to the top of the board) state that using the word cis in an inflammatory way is not 'conducive to civil debate'. There are several terms which we do not use (despite being entirely factual) because those are not 'conducive to civil debate' so it doesn't seem unreasonable that you return the courtesy.

"Disabled and able bodied women".

Well, isn't that an inadvertently apt example. "Trans women and cis women" doesn't work because by calling other women "cis", you are making huge assumptions about women.

Calling women "disabled"/"able bodied" is the same, as you're making huge assumptions about the women who you've assessed as "able bodied" and not disabled. Invisible Disabilities Exist.

Is cis being pushed as a term by a minority as people in real world situations are using the world 'real' to highlight the truth...
"Did you here about the women winning the swimming race?"
"Do you mean the transwoman or the real women?".

In the real world cis is another odd term and doesn't mean anything, but people know what women means.

I'm using the swimming example btw as this is an area being highlighted in the media due to the confusion that a man is competing in women's races.

For example, in these discussions about trans issues we might need to distinguish between trans women and cis women when it comes to the rights each cohort should enjoy

If you really need a term - why not transwomen and biological women?

As more of a lurker, this thread has been very illuminating - and hopefully will be the same for many other lurkers.

Aside from the initial query of the thread, it’s been very interesting to note the constant use, by a few, of a term that is deemed offensive. It has been requested, numerous times, for that term not to be used. But those posters have “doubled-down’ on its use.

Twenty pages in, not one of those posts have been removed. The requests against that terminology have been polite and well argued. No one on here can have reported those posts. Because people have been prepared to argue their point.

Compare that to how a) most on here will be very respectful with the language used on any thread on this board; and b) how quickly some monitors will get a post deleted if there’s any hint of “wrong” language used. Another example of wanting open discussion v shut down what you don’t like.

I’ll add to the end of this post, for those that have been doing so, please stop using a term that is classed as offensive on this board. I’d hope that you can make your points coherently without needing to to use that term.

For example, in these discussions about trans issues we might need to distinguish between trans women and cis women when it comes to the rights each cohort should enjoy.

So there is a difference between the two, then. What is it?

And why can it not be adequately communicated by use of the terms "women" and "transwomen"?

Now out of courtesy is someone really and in good faith said they didn’t want me to refer to them personally as cisgender, that’s fine.

Can you do me the courtesy of answering the question of what's progressive and inclusive about pushing a statement that is a) logically absurd b) changes the meaning of the word "woman" and forces that change upon everyone and c) enables and encourages situations where male people take opportunities and awards meant for female people, break their skulls and sexually assault them?

Having been the wife and the mother of the children in a similar situation, I'd hazard a guess that they're far from fine. Or maybe they're fine now, but when the reality kicks in I can see that changing.

@DancingBarefootOnIce

I think it depends what you mean by "not alright with it"

There’s a difference between being fine with people being gay or trans in general and being fine with your partner coming out as such. I mean it’s not unreasonable that you’d feel lied to and feel your whole relationship was a sham.

Exactly this. Then add in the reality - the social consequences (being afraid to do something as basic as go to the supermarket with them), the cost, the inevitable self-absorption, the appointments, the surgeries, the reactions of everyone close to you, the children's friends' responses (and those of their parents), the grief and sense of loss, the loss of agency in your own life, the list goes on...

If woman means sex, then transwomen are not women.
If woman means some kind of mysterious gender identity, then the vast majority of posters on this board are not women, cis or otherwise.
One of the other of these must be true. Which is it, teaklaxon?