Frustrating conversation with NB sister

[pastatriangles]

'I don't want to be called a cis woman.' (Me)
'I will call you cis because that's what you are.'
'What would you say if a transwoman wanted to be called a woman?'
'I would call her a woman.'
'You wouldn't insist on calling them a trans woman because that's what they are?'
...

It's so frustrating how many women and girls don't realise this movement is actually the pinnacle of male entitlement, to the point of them taking over womanhood for themselves. And the refusal to see it when confronted with it.

end rant.

Firstly, it doesn't mean that.

Secondly, its use attempts to make biological women merely a subset of 'woman' - and, further, a more privileged and less worthy subset, hence needing to shut up and 'be kind'.

Thirdly, do you patronise and argue with other groups over what terms they'd like you to use - telling them that they just don't understand the meanings of the words themselves?

Because that's what you're doing here.

@Clementineorsatsuma and @TeaKlaxon , we clearly have conflicting opinions, which mean this can all get a bit circuitous and emotive (you say tomayto, I say tomahto), so how about trying to resolve this by getting as close as we possibly can to more objective basics?

Clementineorsatsuma - let's take a definitions-based approach, from the starting point of a source I assume you would trust (apologies & put me right if not).

"Cisgender or Cis: Someone whose gender identity is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth" and "Gender: Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth." (Stonewall).

This unambiguously establishes that in asking me to call myself "cis" to distinguish me from "trans", you are assuming that I identify with "largely culturally determined... femininity". I don't. Not remotely!!!

As such, what about my rejection of this label could be deemed unreasonable or unjustifiable?

TeaKlaxon - in the face of the two-tomah/ay-to stand-off, I think logic may work best here...

You refer to the vital importance of linguistic classes to distinguish between different groups. I agree. "Trans women" is a necessary descriptor for those who identify as trans, and, as I understand it, also accepted by this group (although many members may find "women" preferable). "Cis women" is a useful descriptor for those who identify as cis and, by definition, embraced by this group.

Would you agree that that leaves two groups without a word: women-who-don't-identify-as-cis (that's quite a mouthful, after all!) and the entirety of adult/juvenile human females as a biological sex class?

Would you agree that the former (women-who-don't-identify-as-cis) are as entitled to choose or reject labels as anyone else?

Would you agree that the latter (the entirety of adult/juvenile human females as a biological sex class) need a word to describe them as a political entity? (By your standards, there's currently no single word to, for example, refer to adult human females suffering under Taliban law - both "trans" and "cis" would presume a particular gender identity, and your interpretation of "women" could include males).

As you'll see from the above, I see inconsistencies in, and issues with, your preferred language that remain unaddressed. So, here's my solution.

My preferred language would be:

transwomen = trans identifying male (already in accepted, common use)
cis women = cis-identifying female (for women who choose this)
women = all adult human females, including cis women*

*Note the spaces in the above, which enable the class distinctions your approach prevents - it would require another concession on the part of transwomen, who, as I understand it, often prefer to retain the gap. But then women are making a concession too, in accepting males' use of "women" in the other half of the word. Note, too, that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the terms above are deemed offensive by the corresponding group.

So that's me.

What would your suggested alternatives be, with a view to making these same necessary distinctions in a respectful way for all concerned?

Someone used the thought experiment of small groups of cat and dog fanciers deciding to assign some cats into the category of dogs and some dogs into the category of cats. For instance, Yorkshire terriers and chihuahuas would be moved to 'cats', and Maine coon cats and Norwegian forest cats would be moved to 'dogs'.

We would then have a similar situation where the new category of 'cats' would consist of 'cis cats' and of 'trans cats', and the new category of 'dogs' would consist of 'cis dogs' and of 'trans dogs.'

What has actually happened is that the desired relabeling of two types of cats and two types of dogs is, in fact, a rewriting of the whole system, and everyone must now follow the new naming rules, even though it turns the resulting two categories into something essentially meaningless in terms of animal behaviour or health.

I am not equating trans debate issues with the above silly example, of course, but sometimes such examples allow us to see more clearly what might be happening to us (what's happening to the dogs and cats which were not moved but are now renamed and seen differently.)

The other way of thinking about this question is in terms of sex-based forms of discrimination.

For instance, who is it who will be viewed in the labour market as possibly capable of pregnancy and therefore possibly seen as an expensive employee to be avoided?(As replacements need to be found and trained and paid for the pregnancy leave time, and as the person may not return to work so all training at the workplace might be lost etc.)

In the new gender identity framework the people potentially discriminated against in hiring and promotions would no longer be found in the category 'women', but would be scattered across all new gender categories. Nonbinary female people would belong to the possible target group, and so would all trans men who the employees know are capable of getting pregnant. Trans women whom others see as fertile-age female people would also be affected, unless the employer knows their trans status in which case they are not.

It seems to me pretty important to have a name for the female sex, for reasons of this type, if feminism is to have any function at all.

WHAT

It's OK @FlatArthur, Discworld is flat.

It’s just turtles all the way down

THEY JUST DON’T WANT YOU TO FIND OUT

sorry about your sister OP, she sounds frustrating

Oh I like turtles.

Ed Suzy Gein…

Sorry about your sister, hopefully she grows out of it. Endless sibling arguments should be about salient issues like who remembers an event in 2004 correctly, not something as bloody embarrassing as enbinism.

Just reply that cis is 'hate speech'. It's a popular narrative these days.

‘I will call you a cis-woman.’

’You are mis-gendering me and I don’t feel safe. I’m a penis-preferring non-trans femme demi-sexual lesbian elf, and I insist you use the full title in any references to me at all times. What? You object? You bigot!’

Many trans people would take issue with the idea that they are not comfortable in their own skin. “Trans joy is real”, “pregnant men” on the cover of magazines and all that.

When you call yourself cis, what you are actually doing is saying that you subscribe to a shit ton of stereotypes about women which chiefly benefit men.