Why 'Cis' is unnecessary

[TerfranosaurusVagina]

What a stonking explanation by @jeaux90. Perfectly put. I thought it deserved its own thread as its so succinct.

Women don't need a prefix, Cis is like needing a word for someone who doesn't collect stamps.

When you're specifically discussing women's rights you dont need a word that attempts to make women a subset of themselves.

It's not succeeded despite years of trying to push and normalise that arse of a word. You still have half the population going 'you what now?' and the other half split between 'I embrace my role as a male enabler!' and 'fuck off right now'.

Hasn't caught on. Is rapidly moving towards the gangnam style dance cupboard of 'things briefly thought to be trendy'.

this.

The end goal is for transwomen to simply be called "women".

You're half right. It isn't quite that, because they want their special trans status. It's for MTF trans people to be the "women" and actual women to be relegated to a third inferior underclass. Because it's a movement populated by some of the most sexist people you'll ever encounter.

Men and women will do fine.

Man / Woman

They work perfectly ok. Trans man / trans woman for those that aren't men or women. It really isn't difficult

Misses whole point of thread

They work perfectly ok. Trans man / trans woman for those that aren't men or women. It really isn't difficult

Or more accurately - for those men and women who for whatever reason reject the term appropriate to their immutable sex. Every adult is, and remains a male or female.

Well yes. That's a better way of putting it

They work perfectly ok. Trans man / trans woman for those that aren't men or women. It really isn't difficult

Except that they don't work.

Every adult is either a woman or a man. There is nobody who is nether of those. This really isn't difficult.

Adjective + noun means a noun that is adjective. Hence Jewish + man = a man who is Jewish. This is the way adjectives and nouns work.

By the trans ideology deliberately misuses and distorts language. Newcomers to this issue see 'trans woman' and think "A woman who is trans. Of course she should be allowed to access women's spaces if she wants."

So, no, 'transman' and 'transwoman' do not work in reference to people who reject reality, precisely because these words are entirely at odds with reality. This really shouldn't be difficult, but the trans ideology is designed to make it difficult.

Utter rot.

Women and Men are perfectly sufficient. If you wish to identify differently and deny your sex, then you can make up your own words. This does not stop you being women and men though either.

This logic is saying we all MUST join the Gender Religion and use Gender Religion Words.

I do not subscribe to the Gender Religion.

Therefore I don't think there is a problem with the language we have and I do have a problem with it being enforced onto me against my will because I don't believe in the need to have new words to 'other' me.

Pretty sure all trans men and women are also adult human females and males?

Yeah but some don't want to be called man / woman based on them being biologically a man or woman. So putting trans in front of it works best for them. I don't need cis in front to describe me

Sorry, are you saying a man who is trans should be described as a trans man (or are you saying trans woman)?

My increasingly hard-line position is that there are men and women, AHMs and AHFs. In the context of whether TW should be in women's spaces there is no point discussing TW - there are men and women.

In other contexts TIM and TIF make sense (Trans Identifying Male and Female).

In the context of meeting a TW who made no claim of being a woman or destroying women's spaces I think I'd be happy to use "she" and TW, in a similar way to how a gay friend of mine referred to Freddie Mercury as "she" (my friend had met and did not like Mr Mercury!).

In the context of a debate the simplest description which is honest and accurate and is not based on trust a TW is a man who claims to identify as a woman. This of course poses the questions "what does "identify as" mean?"; "in what way does it make sense for a man to identify as something that they categorically are not and can never be?"; and "the claim itself is meaningless to me, but can we even trust that the claim means anything to the person making it?"

If they were born a woman, but want to be a man instead of calling biological men who 'identify' as men 'cis' they should just accept trans man. I don't know what the answer is. I don't want to accept a label I do not want to be called.

I agree that there is no reason to change the words man and woman.

I agree that if your priority is politeness to people who claim to be trans then trans woman for men, and trans men for women makes sense.

I am very uncomfortable with the implication that a trans woman is someone in a group that is a sub-set of women, and I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we should accept what someone claims to be based on trust, when it makes no sense, cannot be defined, they are seeking to destroy other people's rights of the back of the claim and they might be lying.

If a male rejects the descriptor 'man' then the only rational descriptor is Trans-Identified Male. It is completely irrational to call him a transwoman because he is not in any way a woman.

MNHQ do not like us using the TIM/TIF descriptors to refer to people with trans identities. However, in this discussion we are not calling any individuals by these descriptors. We are discussing the use of language. So I hope these posts stand. Similarly the use of sex-accurate pronouns to describe people of a specific sex.

I agree that if your priority is politeness to people who claim to be trans then trans woman for men, and trans men for women makes sense.

It does not make any sense, and You've explained why in your next paragraph:

I am very uncomfortable with the implication that a trans woman is someone in a group that is a sub-set of women,

I agree with you. I do however think that some people (and maybe even you in certain circumstances - such as a women's toilet where a "TW" is being aggressive) wish to prioritise politeness.

I can see circumstances where I would be polite. A cousin is getting married and their partner has a friend who is a TW. The wedding reception is not the place to correctly sex someone and get into a debate. I hope to NEVER again be put in a position where I feel obliged to be polite.

Absolutely I would try to be polite by default. And 'politeness' could easily be coerced from me for self-defence.

It is not impolite to use sex-accurate pronouns when referring to someone in their absence.

Sex-accurate language, not just pronouns.

What a surprise to see you plopping on my thread.
To steal a phrase from the people you mindlessly defend, whether their actions are indefensible or not, go and educate yourself.
I'm a woman. Women are not trans. Woman will do.

Okay, Real Women will do.

Haha brilliant.

Its something else when a man comes to a thread to tell women they MUST have another name to satisfy the males isn't it?

8. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.