Is it OK to be undecided about certain things?

[Veryverycalmnow]

I am interested in some issues that I see being discussed on here (about transwomen mostly). I am supportive of some of what both 'sides' are saying. I am finding that everyone I hear or read discussing this is very definite and absolute about their opinion and I wondered if anyone is just fairly neutral or confused like me and trying to understand both sides of the argument? Is it ok to be on the fence with an issue like the gender- neutral bathroom debate, for example?

I promise I'm not trying to open a can of worms but I genuinely think it is so complicated that I can't decide who is right.

Being female correlates to having an XX body, and vice versa, in nearly 100% of cases. (I don't know enough about genetics to know the number where this would be questionable). Maybe being generous let's say 99.95%.

Having socially feminine behaviour, characteristics, interests etc - I would accept this as broadly interchangeable for 'being female' if a high enough % of females displayed it, and also a low enough % of males, in order to make it have high specificity and high sensitivity (remember covid testing? These are how well a 'test' correctly identifies the group in question).

For me, I'd say around 95% of females would need to fairly consistently display an agreed set of behaviours, and 95% of males would not, in order for this to be a good synonym for 'women'.

I do not believe this is the case, so I find using any variation of femininity, womanly, ladylike etc to be so poorly correlated with 'female sex' as to be fairly useless at best, harmful at worst as an interchangeable term. So, 'woman' as a 'social definition' is, to me, not a thing, as it doesn't define anything very well. You've got a person who likes playing with children? You can't confidently say that's a definition of their sex.

Now obviously, being female or male say nothing about you as a person. The expectations of a person solely due to their sex (one might define this as 'gender') will shape that person, to varying degrees.
One's sex is vitally important in some parts of life - medical, etc - but should be essentially irrelevant in others. But that's where gender kicks in and a whole raft of prejudices based on that.

The person who gave birth to a child but refused to be called their 'mother' clearly had some deeply held ideas about what that word means, other than purely 'female parent'. You will often see people so unable to even realise they hold these prejudices that they can't let go of them.

I just wanted to quickly say thank you for all the interesting and thoughtful responses and follow up questions, I will come back this evening after work to reply

“The wise man knows that he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all.” (Ancient proverb)

You shouldn’t have to ask “Is it ok” when talking about your opinion, even if your current opinion is that you’re unsure. Think what you think and don’t feel a need to ask other people to dis/approve of your thoughts.

OP, you are not obliged to use 'cis' for yourself or others. Many women here see the term 'cis' as offensive and ask for people not to apply it to them.

I agree with Wor, here - maybe worth asking why you feel the need to ask permission to ask questions or which words it's okay to use. We do live in a relatively free society. What is it that you're afraid of?

@aseriesofstillimages thanks for joining in the thread, can I politely ask that you don't use the word cis, many of us find it an offensive and unnecessary term as-well as it being a banned word on this board, woman and transwomen are accurate enough descriptors on here.
That being said can I ask, are there any elements of this debate where your views align with GC views? If so do you debate these points with other people (ie TRAs)?

Of course it’s good to be uncertain and to question the information you are given, if you don’t question then how are you ever going to have the information you need to separate the facts from the fiction and the science from the feelings.

Obviously it's fine to be undecided.

Anecdotally, all the people I know who used to be undecided, and quite a few who were initially of the view that "trans women are women" have ended up firmly in the gender critical camp.

In my experience, the more you learn about gender identity theory, the less convincing it is.

As a basic rule of thumb, if to define a group so that you can be part of it means bouncing existing people out of the group, you've messed up.

If 'woman' means people with long hair who like children what do we call the women who have short hair and can't stand children?

If it means people who can't read maps what do we call the women who do?

If it means people who say they have a feminine essence, what do we call the women who say they don't have an essence of any kind, don't be silly?

In all honesty everyone knows this means biological female, they just are trying to jig it to mean 'and biological males who want to'.

Its the same with single sex spaces. If you're a male person who is using a female only space because it suits and fits you and your self expression and you prefer it, and you are ok with bouncing female people out of what is, and you know it, the female only space? Making it inaccessible and excluding of females to 'include' you? No. Not ok. Not unless you believe that males matter more than females, and that renders all this buggering about with sex classifications pointless. Because the actions say you believe sex is binary, fixed, you know exactly who is who and who gets what they want and who doesn't.

I think the best way to illustrate it is by thinking of the example of a trans person who ‘passes’. I’ll take the example of a trans man, and think about how they are a man in the social sense, as I know some people dispute that there are any trans women who really pass, whereas I think it would be difficult to claim there are no trans men who pass.

So this trans man is regarded as a man by all those he interacts with - they instinctively refer to him with male pronouns, and consciously or unconsciously hold beliefs and make assumptions about him as a man (which will be highly dependent on their own experiences and biases) - they might assume he is interested in sports, not interested in babies, finds it hard to express emotion, that he’s assertive or potentially aggressive. That he’s more likely to be a lorry driver or doctor than a ballet dancer or nanny. That he’s more likely to be attracted to women than men. Of course, it may be that these assumptions are all incorrect.

On the side of the trans man, he may or may not feel comfortable with all of those assumptions about him. But it feels ‘right’ when he is referred to using male pronouns - it feels like he is being seen as he really is (at least regarding his gender), whereas as female pronouns would feel ‘jarring’. Knowing that other people perceive him to be a man similarly feels right.

The fact that it is possible for this person to pass through the world of social interaction indistinguishable from any other man (even though it is clear on a close anatomical inspection, or through medical tests, that he is a trans man and biologically different from men who are not trans), suggests to me that there is a real social category of ‘man’.

Of course, there is then a separate question about who falls into the social categories of man or women (and whether some people don’t fall within either), and who gets to decide who is in which category. Not everyone who wants to fit with a category will be perceived by others as falling within that category. There is also the question of what significance is attached to those social categories - should it determine what people can do, what services they can access or what spaces they can enter? Or should it just dictate what pronouns are used to refer to them?

So... this social category really only applies to trans people that pass. And is based on other people's assumptions about them based on their masculine appearance. And those assumptions are a collection of.... stereotypes....

That is a good point. It’s quite a long time ago, but as far as I recall, it was in the evening and it seemed that the few people coming and leaving were mostly staff rather than patients. Also, now I think about it further, I don’t think the ‘pro-life’ vigil was entirely silent - I think there were also prayers and hymns (although I accept that we were probably making rather more noise than them). But I do take your point that, even if our intentions were good, this might not have been the most helpful approach when taking into account the feelings of those using the service on that day.

suggests to me that there is a real social category of ‘man’.

This being the social category of biological males, and a single person who has managed to create an illusion so strongly of being a biological male that they are not recognised in surface day to day interactions as not being a biological male.

This is lovely for the person who wishes to live within that illusion and its benefits to them personally.

However it is not all about this one, single, theoretical person.

Should all women have to lose their language for this one person so that this one person does not have to face a jarring of their chosen reality by having to state in their medical notes or respond to a letter that is specific to the needs of someone with what is in fact female biology, but upsets them to have to be reminded of this?

What happens when this one person has a relationship that progresses to sex and they choose not to share that the reality is that they are in fact biologically female? According to the political rightthink they are entitled to not be 'outed' if the person who consented to sex due to believing they were male encounters a situation they did not consent to and feels that they have been used or deceived?

What about those who identify as this sex and would like all the benefits of being part of this social category and illusion but in fact sadly are not able to create the illusion to the degree of this particular theoretical person? In fact that means the social category has to lose all meaning, as it is not fair or possible to try and establish whether one person can successfully create an illusion that few will see through and whether another person is less successful. This in fact results in the situation women now have: of obviously male presenting males in their spaces and no means to tell even which are transitioners and which are male people who identify as men and wish to be in women's spaces for other reasons.

What about where someone's transition is part of a sexual desire for experiences involving members of the opposite sex? Where do the rights of those people using that single sex space come to not be made part of someone else's sexual experience without their consent?

And what are we going to do with those who cannot use mixed sex spaces due to their own needs and vulnerabilities (which obviously matter as much as TQ+ people's do) and use a single sex space in good faith that this is being respected by others to allow them access? Should it be a case of if they can be successfully deceived by an illusion their needs/consent doesn't matter? Or should they stop using spaces at all and give up access because they cannot depend on people respecting sex based spaces and looking for better alternatives that would work for all, and instead have to expect that there will be people of both sexes in this space?

It is complicated, but this is the thing - personal freedoms have to end at the point of removing freedoms and access and equality from someone else. Your right to swing your arms around ends at someone else's nose.

If it makes someone feel right and happy to transition then I'm delighted for them, but people have sex based needs too and solutions have to be found that work for everyone. Not just TQ+ people.

@Veryverycalmnow
Thanks for answering my questions. I did mean 'some' women feel that way.

I have another question and I hope it doesn't offend anybody: Is it important to say 'cis' each time? I don't really like the word. I used to get called a 'sissy' by an ex colleague and it annoys me personally to be described as cis. Who decided on that word? Would it be ok to use a different word?

I use the term ‘cis’ when I want to be clear that I am specifically referring to people who are not trans. When I say ‘woman’ I often mean that to include trans women and to exclude trans men, so if I’m specially talking about women who are not trans I need to specify that. I could say ‘non-trans women’ but that involves typing more letters, and I also don’t believe it’s ideal to define the majority group explicitly by reference to their not being in the minority group - eg ‘non-gay’, ‘non-black’.

I don’t love ‘cis’ as a term either (as you say, it sounds like it would be related to ‘sissy’). I’m not sure who chose it, but I think it was chosen as the natural opposite of ‘trans’ - trans meaning ‘on the other side’ and cis meaning ‘on this side’. The term has been around for quite a long time, and I suspect it might be difficult at this point to replace it with something else, but you never know!

"C*s" meaning "on this side".... the side that happily agrees to conforming to all the assumptions, stereotypes and performances of femininity that have been demanded of women since time immemorial?? No thanks.

'Cis' is a political label and I and many other women do not agree with that political label, accept the identity it involves, and find it offensive. Please don't use it to coercively label me. I have nothing against those who choose to use that identity for themselves, but it's not a group that includes me.

Yes, it is necessary sometimes to be very verbal and jump language through hoops to accommodate everyone's choices and preferences around gender identity, goodness knows we've had to get good at this on MN to avoid causing offense and being deleted due to it, but this has to apply to all equally if it's going to work.

Cis doesn't mean not trans though

It means identifying as having a gender in alignment with expectations for your sex

So you actually have transgender people , cis gender people and people who reject all gender

These later actually are often like transgender people in that they feel that gender assumptions do not fit them but they handle that in a different way / rather than describe themselves as transgender , rather than see anything wrong in themselves , they instead refuse to be bound to any gender and push for gender norms to be dismantled

So cis is not not trans
To people with no gender it's as insulting as calling a transwoman a man for example

The term has been around for quite a long time, and I suspect it might be difficult at this point to replace it with something else, but you never know!

The term 'woman' has become 'uterus haver' fairly swiftly. So I think we can handle it. I'll check with the Board and get back to you.

I completely agree with this - to dismiss the association of particular traits or tendencies with one sex/gender more than another as merely stereotypes (whether or not the perceived association reflects a real world statistical differences in how people behave) is to simplistically trivialise very real and important aspects of many people’s identity and sense of self.

There are plenty of people who will refer to themselves as cis gender without conforming to gender stereotypes. Have you come across Grace Petrie? She is a butch lesbian who (last time I saw her express a view) regards herself as cis gender, simply because she is not trans. She also sometimes get challenged using women’s toilets because people mistake her for a man.

And Grace is fully entitled to decide what words Grace chooses to use for herself.

As is everyone else.

Either we all get to use the words we choose and think are most appropriate for others and all others can just deal with that because it's the word we chose, or we agree that this is rude, coercive and dismissive of someone's identity and choices and we respect which words they do and do not use. Pick either one. I don't mind which.

Yeah I don't care if Petrie calls herself cis. That's her choice. But realise that there are many women like me who find it represents everything about stereotypes associated with women that we have been fighting against our whole lives. I will not accept a label to describe me that I regard as insulting and dismissive. So probably best not to label all women as "cis" because they are not male.

I certainly will not refer directly to any of you who object to the term ‘cis gender’ using that term. But I don’t think it’s been banned on MN - as far as I recall the guidelines say it must not be used in an offensive way, not that it can’t be used at all, and they will make judgements on a case by case basis.

The main way in which my views align with GC views is that I believe gender is socially constructed and can be very limiting and damaging. I don’t believe individuals have a gendered ‘soul’ or that anyone is born in the wrong body (though I believe people can have a very powerful and real feeling of having been born in the wrong body). I think we should all (particularly in dealings with children) consciously try to resist the conscious or unconscious tendencies most of us have to treat people differently based on their sex/gender - eg make sure not to praise girls for being pretty or well behaved more than being brave, strong or clever (and similarly make sure not to deter boys from expressing emotion or showing vulnerability).

I do discuss these things fairly regularly with other people. The other day I was talking to a colleague in the pub about a talk he’d attended on trans inclusion, given by a trans person. He was expressing surprise at having found out that our gender is formed/influenced by hormones in the womb. I said I suspected any evidence to that effect was probably highly contested - while I have read about some studies suggesting that exposure to hormones in the womb can affect sexuality and gender identity, it is certainly not proven or established.

At a guess, I would say it's a very, very small minority of women who identify as 'cis'. So using the term as a blanket descriptor is going against all principles of respecting people's identity and ability to self identify.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Gay people should clearly have the primary say in what they’re called, but they also have a stake in what people who are not gay are called - what if a heterosexual person decided they didn’t like that term and felt the best way to refer to their sexuality was ‘sexually normal’ or ‘non-deviant’? It’s their label, so presumably you would say it’s up to them - but it also has implications for how gay people are regarded.

Well
Yes and if they decided to call themselves gay that would also be problematic

The point remains is that if someone does not see themselves as cis gendered then it is wrong to call them that