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.

Ah I see.

So some people get to choose their own words but other people don't? And their feelings about their identity and language don't matter?

No thank you. Either it's a value applied equally or it isn't. Pick one. Again, I don't mind which. I am not going to fall apart with you calling me words I find offensive personally, but will expect equal tolerance to my using the words I prefer instead of those others would prefer. I don't engage in social contracts with anyone (or group) who demand respect from me but gives none reciprocally in return. It's not a healthy or appropriate thing.

So who gets the final decision on how women get to define themselves? Is someone going to check the term and give approval or refusal?

I think your problem is that you are not recognising the nature of gender - it's not something experienced by all people in the same way so it's not trans or not trans.

That's like saying people are either British or German - a false binary , and sone people have no nationality

As a lesbian btw, if someone wants to rant at me about being sexually deviant then I'm going to think they're a bit of a twit and discover an urgent need to go wash my goldfish's hair, but no, I don't need to control their language.

I mean, I'm perfectly happy to call someone 'cis' if they wish to use that term. I merely expect the same respect in return.

I do think there’s an important difference between me specifically referring to an individual person as cis gender if they find the term offensive (and I’ve said I won’t do that) - I don’t call my partner cis gender for this reason - and me using it to refer collectively to women who are not trans. It’s like if I wanted to make an observation about bisexual people (eg ‘bisexual people face prejudice from both gay and straight people’) - I use that term knowing that there are people I’m talking about (basically people who are neither gay nor straight, nor asexual) who don’t identify as bisexual - they might say they are pansexual, or they don’t subscribe to sexuality categories at all. If a person told me they didn’t identify as bisexual I wouldn’t insist on telling them they are in fact bisexual. But that doesn’t mean they don’t in a general sense fall with the category of people I was talking about in my original observation.

And to my mind if you refer to 'cis women' you're talking exclusively about a group of women with a political affiliation who have chosen that label.

No shared meaning.

And to my mind, having been told that many here don't want to be referred to as cis, having checked and found that the word is in the use with caution list, the very fact that you are still defending, explaining, belabouring us with your reasons for continuing to use it, you are not really showing yourself as a poster ready to listen, to exchange ideas and information.

So thanks, but no thanks!

using it to refer collectively to women who are not trans.

Just don't. You've been asked not to, it's rude.

No, you're referring to a group (comprising half of all human beings) that already had a name - 'women'. The fact that a small but very loud group of people has recently and unilaterally decided to give us a different name does not mean that we accept it and does not mean that people outside of that small, loud group should agree to use it to refer to us. That small,loud group is very welcome to make up a new name for themselves. 'Women' is already taken.

It's similar referring to non-Muslims as 'q**s', in my view. (Which has come to have another derogatory meaning, so I'll not post the word.) Using the term (with arguably derogatory connotations/undertones) of one belief system to label those who don't subscribe to that belief system.

In fact, the use of 'cis' for people who don't subscribe to gender ideology is very close to your example of heterosexuals calling themselves 'normal sexuals' or whatever the term was you used.

I don't like the term cis to be used either but I do think aseriesofstillimages has tried to answer questions and explain personal reasons for using it, not trying to offend anyone. I hope responses to it won't put them off having an open discussion about it all. Maybe if aseriesofstillimages agrees not to use it on this thread we can carry on politely?

So just going back to this - you are saying that the 'social' meaning of the word 'woman' is basically someone who may or may not be female, but looks as though they are?

I can understand this. So 'woman' means a female person or someone who appears to be one.

But this completely relies on appearance. It's at odds with the view that gender is an innate thing, with nothing to do with bodies, and I think comes down to visual judgment which is not necessarily kind and inclusive.

From Stonewall guidance it would appear I'm more likely trans than cis. But until there are solid definitions I'll remain flexible and would rather not be called either, because I'm not comfortable with not really knowing exactly what they mean (when I've asked I've had conflicting answers from different people, so it's clearly not as set in stone as I thought when I thought 'trans' essentially meant transsexual, a few years ago!)

I believe the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ can have varying meanings - biological or social - depending on the context

Only if you decide people can make up their own new meanings for established words. I could decide 'giraffe' meant 'someone tall who likes eating leaves' and therefore my 6'3" salad-eating friend is a giraffe. Doesn't make it true. Anyway, what does it mean to be 'socially' a woman?

So why should this totally passing transman be treated differently to any woman? Just why ?

Why can't I look like myself , no hormones and surgery that might affect my life expectancy, and get treated the same as all men?

Why should having boobs mean o get different interaction?

Why? It shouldn't happen. It's wrong.

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.
Exactly. So applying a blanket label like this is just reifying stereotypes - why do we need it? It seems actively harmful.

This is what I don't get. Why is treating someone 'as a woman' in social situations a thing to be upheld rather than discouraged? I don't want to be treated 'as a woman' in social situations. I don't want assumptions made about me because of my sex. It is not a good thing for either sex.

I agree, @jellyfrizz.

In situations where sex matters and there are good reasons for treating men and women differently due to their different physiology, e.g. sports, trans women should be treated like male people, not female people. The reason for the difference in treatment is due to sex, not gender, and "identifying as" the opposite sex negates the purpose of that difference in treatment.

In all other situations, who is treating men and women differently, and why?

I honestly cannot think of a single situation in life where it is necessary or desirable to treat people differently based on "gender", which is a social construct based on regressive stereotypes.

The example was just to illustrate that man and woman are social categories as well as biological categories. It does not answer the question of what importance we should attach to those categories, or how it is decided (or who gets to decide) who goes in which. As you say, it doesn’t seem right that something that can be so central to a person’s identity should rely on other people’s perceptions of them. The categories are not concrete, objective or clear at the edges, like categories of sexuality. This is why I believe the starting point should be that an individual decides which label feels right to them.

My example did not say anything about whether people should be treated differently because they are a man or a woman. It just illustrated that they clearly are - and in multiple and often subtle ways that can be beneficial to them as well as detrimental.

But the focus is on the wrong thing. Yes men and women are treated differently socially. Instead of just accepting that the push should be to change that - which would help everyone.

I believe you can fight for change while also accepting that, as things currently stand, some people need to (and do) change the social category they fall within. As I explained in an earlier post, I am fully committed to challenging assumptions made about people because of them being a man or a woman.

By saying that someone can be a woman 'socially' you are upholding the notion that people should be treated differently.

I think we should be doing everything we can to remove baggage from sex.
I don't think you can fight for change when also adding people to the woman category because of the baggage.

As well as entrenching stereotypes (which harm everyone) it alienates those of us with female anatomy who very much don't relate to the baggage.