My son can tell...

[allthevitamins]

Watching 'Inside the Factory' on BBC1 with DS, 10.

Cherry Healy was talking about lightbulbs with Dr Clara Barker, Materials Scientist.

Please note this is not personal in relation to Dr Baker.

Dr Barker is Transwoman.

DS says, 'is that a lady?'.

I say no, it's a man.

We left it at that.

I mean Dr Barker is quite feminine.

But unprompted, my DS knew that Dr Barker is not a woman.

Why should I have to lie to him about this?

@akkakk
Great post (and I didn't know that men used to wear high heels! I love learning random facts!)

Yes thanks @akkakk !

This really is turning into such an interesting (and polite and respectful) thread especially given some of the other discussions going on on this board at present.

I do feel a bit strange about my son though... all this discussion going on about something he said! I guess my point is that he's just a very average (obviously wonderful to me) 10 year old.

Off topic historical note.

Heels on footwear were introduced to Europe in the form of heeled riding boots, which make riding with stirrups much more practical and safer. At first they were only worn by men. (Riders are still advised to wear heeled riding boots as shoes without a heel run the risk of slipping through the stirrup and getting caught, which can be extremely dangerous.)

Then heels came to be fashionable, and later usual, on men's and women's shoes for those classes that didn't have to walk too far in them.

Have a look at full length portraits of fashionable people from the 17th and 18th centuries

@soupycustard Have a look at the Coronation Portrait of King Charles by John Michael Wright. (Not KCIII but KCII )

To be fair - I mainly learned about it from reading Georgette Heyer!

I did already clarify that I was wrong to say born one gender.

I do just think we have to disagree, I respect transpeople and their rights and use the gender pronouns people prefer, not what I think they look like or what they were based on sex at birth.

Everyone thinks their opinion is right, otherwise we wouldn't keep it as our opinion.

Thank you for clarifying, I will use 'CIS' far more cautiously but No, I don't really see how it is offensive. But I don't need to, as clearly people do find it so.

Though - I would have thought if the issue is we don't want to be lumped in together with trans women that having a label that then separates us is a good thing for those who believe it's important not to all be known by the same term?

I guess it does just boil down to respectfully disagreeing, I am a female and I feel female but have no problems with calling a person assigned male at birth a woman if that's what they want.

That doesn't mean I think care shouldn't be taken when it comes to hospital beds and prisons and competitive sports, I fully understand that it's controversial and needs real thought put into it.

Things change and societal norms change and I'm just doing my best to try and keep up.

"Though - I would have thought if the issue is we don't want to be lumped in together with trans women that having a label that then separates us is a good thing for those who believe it's important not to all be known by the same term?"

This thinking is definitely part of the problem and why we find the term CIS offensive. We already have a name, we're women. Trans women are trans women.
Unless you think trans women are women and women need to pre-fix their own name?

I would say there is nothing unreasonable about employing a term that is already in use across the sciences to conjunction with 'trans' in order to describe different states - as you say, it is a useful distinction in some situations and no more clunky than other descriptors like 'white' or 'British'.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of it myself as it has always grated a little - it feels like academic overspill into everyday speech to me, and that can get on my nerves - but then I've always felt the same way about the 'trans' prefix as well and there is no hope of escaping that!

In being chastised for using it, you are seeing first-hand the manifestation of an ongoing attempt to manufacture a climate of faux-outrage in order to make it harder to discuss one of the intersectional aspects of womanhood. This one doesn't seem to have gotten as much traction as previous attempts, however.

You certainly have nothing to apologise for - it's a useful descriptive prefix in common use.

Having a differing opinion is not 'a problem' - so saying my thinking that way is part of a problem is, ironically, problematic. It's not more a problem than your way of thinking.

Things you have said can easily cause offense also. I apologised and explained I hadn't realised. I can't do much more.

I've said I wouldn't use the term widely, I just still don't fully understand. It doesn't take anything away from being a women, in my opinion.

But logically if it's that people don't want to be deemed the same and trans women a label that fully others them, would logically, be a good thing in my mind.

You feel differently, and that's fine.

I have no problem being called a cis-woman. That doesn't mean you have to be ok with it.

Having heard why people are offended hasn't changed my opinion, I still am not offended. But wouldn't use it outside of my normal social circles so as not to cause offense.

Women are allowed to say that we don't want to be referred to with a word that we find offensive. We are also allowed to explain why.

We don't need anyone to offer a bad faith explanation of why we object to that term.

It's also highly offensive for you to dimiss women's feelings as 'faux outrage'.

It’s a bit like lady firefighter, lady doctor, lady pilot.

There’s an assumed bias- that firefighters, doctors, pilots are male.

Transwomen are a subset of men.
Transmen are a subset of women.
Women are not a subset of women.

I think that there are times when the truth is important, times when it is less so.

Honestly, in the OP’s example, I would have said something like ‘I am not sure and it doesn’t really matter anyway’ to a young child.

In Science, sport, prisons etc, the truth really matters, but in everyday manners less so.

I wonder if everyone is so keen on the truth regarding fat? ‘Do I look fat’? ‘You not only look fat but you are fat, and, if your BMI is over 30, you are not just fat but obese’…

I actually don't think anyone can say what all women want to be called.

and that's an ongoing thing, it's the same in many communities.

Not everyone woman is going to agree with you.

@pickledandpuzzled I understand your point but just don't feel it's the same.

But agree, if I hear 'lady doctor' or 'male nurse' I cringe.

I actually assume people mean a gynaecologist if they say lady doctor, which has lead to interesting confusions!

@missshortie89

Why do you think that it is so important not to 'misgender' people but, when people complain about cis, your reaction is (pretty much) 'whatevz'.
Why do you care more about men's feelings than women's?

I'm another who doesn't like the cis-thing, in case you haven't guessed.

I apologised and said I'd use it less frequently and with caution.

Isn't that the correct way to behave?

I've also said I don't understand it being offensive but don't need to to respect some people do find it offensive and act accordingly.

I don't have to agree and be offended by it and really have tried to be respectful.

Not sure how it can be interpreted that I've just said 'whatevs'

I actually don't think anyone can say what all women want to be called.

Agree - no-one speaks for all women (least of all me as I am male!) but that is not the point - the word woman has a meaning - let's bring the OED back in...

woman, n.An adult female human being. The counterpart of man (see man, n.¹ II.4.).

it is very simple and basic - you are born male -> boy -> man or female -> girl -> woman

this is about fact, it is immutable, not up for debate because it could be debated for the next 100 years and it will change nothing - debate and feelings and wishes and desires can not change what is and a woman is and always will be an adult female...

this means that no-one who was born male / was a boy / was a man can ever be a woman - fact.

So, it has to be asked then why this immutable, undisputable fact causes so much debate, and it is possible to think of lots of reasons, but they all come down to the same area for discussion... if there are men who want to be called 'woman' there must be a benefit to them... you will see a lot of arguments put forward, and they will continually change as some are shown to be weak and others are felt to be stronger (itself a sign of the shifting sands beneath the arguments) - ultimately it comes down to some men wanting to be in women's spaces - there is no other basic reason

if a 'trans-woman' is arguing to be called a woman - it is only because they want to be seen as identical (in sport / access to changing rooms / etc.) - and you have to ask why that might be and I am not sure that the reasons stack up as ever being to the advantage of women - only to the advantage of the men concerned...

that is why word definitions are so important - it is why it is important to stand up for the fact that they have factual / scientific / immutable meanings which are not up for change - it is why labels such as cis should be resisted as they are a way of trying to wiggle into women's spaces etc.

you might ask why I post about this as a man - a number of reasons, I don't like deceit, I don't like people taking advantage of others, I want to show that there are decent men around and this is not a man v woman debate - it is a sub-section of men causing the issue, and because I want all men to stand up for truth and honesty - can I fight the women's fight - no, and I don't need to as there are brilliant women out there walking all over lots of men in court and elsewhere, but it is important that this is seen as those for truth against those who are trying to spin lies and deceit - not man v woman.

really?! 😁

the fact that a term is in use - doesn't need to make it acceptable - there are plenty of racist words that were mainstream many years ago and which are generally agreed to be not acceptable...

no faux-outrage, no real outrage, just a reminder that truth is the first priority and therefore anything which detracts from that or pretends otherwise should be challenged.

intersectional aspect of womanhood (?! 😁)
back to our friends at the OED:

womanhood, n.The state, condition, or fact of being a woman rather than a man.

woman, n.An adult female human being. The counterpart of man (see man, n.¹ II.4.).

pretty clear there...
total clarity in fact!
no chance that anyone can see any element of a man being anything to do with being a woman or womanhood
the OED clearly defines it as the fact of being a woman - not a man, a woman is defined clearly as an adult human female - the counterpart of a man...

So anyone born male -> boy -> man can never be a woman / can never experience womanhood / can never be an intersectional aspect of womanhood

let's pull away the deliberate obfuscation / cobwebs - let's go back to reality and truth, let us stop pretending that anyone (however they might transition or feel, whatever hormones they take, whatever surgery they have) can ever change sex - they can't.

there is no such thing as a cis-woman and a trans woman - there is simple woman and man - a transgender man is simply a man who wishes to present like a woman according to societal gender expectations - it doesn't make them a woman, they are still a man.

Also nobody is assigned anything at birth. Sex is observed at birth and nowadays more often in utero via scans or DNA. Where the observation is incorrect it isn’t because someone’s random choice got it wrong, it will be for a clinical reason (genetics, or DSD, or on scan that it just isn’t very accurate but it usually is in person!)

women are not a subset of their own sex class.

Interesting and a lot of what you're saying is literally factual, but I actually don't agree, words and language change constantly. Things are redefined, word usage evolves.

Nice originally meant silly or foolish.

As do societal norms and gender stereotypes and acceptable dress.

Pluto used to be a planet. Homosexuality a crime. Showings ones ankle unthinkable.

Topics likes this are nuanced and interactive and subjective not black and white.

"I apologised [for using cis] and said I'd use it less frequently and with caution."
versus
"I wouldn't want my child mis-gendering a trans person"

Can you not hear the difference?

some things do change - others don't.
the things that change are those which humans get to define and choose - as mentioned above, high heels used to be men's wear - now seen as female shoes, pink was boys and blue girls until c. 1920s - lots of things change...

equally other things never change - no-one has succeeded in alchemy, a dog and a table will always be different things, one animate one inanimate - men will always be men and women will always be women - that is not a choice and it can't be redefined - it just is...

@akkakk ,

So do you tell the doctor your weight in Newtons? Or do you accept weight as the commonly used (but incorrect) term for mass?

I mean mass will always be mass and weight will always be weight but a lot of people do use them wrongly. So, in certain contexts, such as the one the OP cited , does it matter if a man wrongly calls himself a woman?

To be fair, I do think it is really important in a lot of contexts that we understand woman to mean someone with XX chromosomes, but words do change and have different meanings in different contexts.

Not really, I wouldn't teach my child to use 'CIS' and I wouldn't teach my child to call someone a woman if they identify as they/them or male.

I wouldn't teach my child to needlessly offend.

I don't really understand what you would like me to do? I've apologised and stopped using the term in this thread where people have said they are offended.

Is it because I haven't said I'll never say it again? because I have been in conversations where people have referred to themselves as cis gendered.

Doesn't it come down to personal choice? and by apologising and stopping it's use in this thread aren't I respecting your personal choice the same as I respect a transperson or non binary to have their preferred pronouns?

not sure that is a valid analogy...
I would probably look for a contextual clue and either say a bit chubby and overweight, or use stones / lbs or kgs.
It is also a confusing analogy because mass for example has many meanings:

mass, v.⁴transitive with complement. To have a specified mass; to weigh a specified amount.

so they are interchangeable there...

mass, n.²A coherent body of matter of unspecified or indeterminate shape, and usually of relatively large bulk; a solid and distinct object occupying space.

perhaps a more accurate definition 😁

man and woman are completely different - there is no context or concept where one could be used to mean the other (assuming of course that we all stand for truth!), so does it matter - yes absolutely - there is no purpose other than harm in telling lies and while it is not the most diplomatic way of phrasing it - to tell people that something is something totally different is exactly that.

Couple of things, @missshortie89:

First, why is 'cis' offensive? --One reason is that in order for 'cis' to make any sense in locutions such as 'cis man' or 'cis woman', it would have to be the case that it's possible to change sex. But it isn't. So it doesn't. And blithely assuming the person you're speaking to is the sort of person who talks, or accepts, nonsense is offensive. Do you see now?

Secondly, yes, it's nice when things like this can get discussed, as you say. One important aspect of discussion involves understanding what one another is saying. I confess I don't understand what on earth you mean by 'gender'.

Sometimes 'gender' just means 'sex'. OK. Other times 'gender' means something like 'the collective attributes or traits [culturally] associated with a particular sex'. Again, OK. But you seem to use it to mean something else. What? (Your Yale thing didn't help - you needed to know what 'gender' meant to be able to understand its explanation; the word 'gender' sneaks into the explanation. Hmm.)

Please, @missshortie89, can you try to explain what you mean by, for instance, being 'born in' a gender. I just don't understand: of course it would make sense if you just meant 'born a certain sex' ... but if so, surely you would have said that? And the other sense I mention above just doesn't fit at all. So you can't mean that. What do you mean, then? What sense of 'gender', non conterminous with 'sex', makes sense of being born in a particular gender?

To be clear, @missshortie89, I think you are talking nonsense, even though you don't realise it. Discussion might help you see more clearly. (And, likewise, I realise I may be mistaken.; if so, discussion might help me see my mistake(s).)

[Of course - this is the internet, after all - you may just be playing the faux naif, as I think someone else mentioned. Your tone suggests that, for sure; rarely is such disingenuousness real. If so, it's unlikely you'll wish to discuss matters in any way openly. But, well, take the benefit of the doubt. (And if you don't understand this parenthetical commentary, just ignore it and accept my apologies for being an old cynic).]