Yes! Colleague is NOT CIS!

[Babysharkdoodoodood]

Another female colleague (sgt) asked me what a cis woman is, as she'd been referred to as such. I explained that it's a made up construct etc etc etc

She exclaimed ' But I'm a woman. Not Cis or whatever.'

Getting there slowly but surely.

Isn't it ridiculous that dadjoke thinks women should describe themselves as non transgender in order to not be confused with a subset of men.

It went from;
Trans identifying man, to
'I identify as a woman', to
'Trans woman' to
'I AM a woman' to
'Trans female' to
'I AM female.

Meanwhile women have been reduced to breeders, bleeders, chest feeders.
cervix havers, people with a uterus etc
And 'cis' is spat at us like we are shit on a shoe.

So no. We don't need to add anything to the word woman in order to pander to men's feelings.

We may call them transwomen as a courtesy but that should be a choice and never forced.

Meh I care about this much what DadJoke thinks women should call themselves in order to make men with special gender identities feel nice. Fuckin care factor zero.
If someone wants to be cisgender that's up to them but

The First Rule Of Gender Club Is 'you don't get to tell me what my gender is'

when I express my dislike of being called cis it goes badly but not half as badly as when I call a man a man. Funny that

yeah that's weird. Obviously you can't change from being a man to being a woman. But you can develop a very detailed gender identity and wear whatever clothes you think fit - that's all part of life's rich tapestry and go for it, I say.

I’m happy for people to ‘go for it’, @BezMills, as long as male people stay the hell out of female people’s loos, changing rooms, wards, prison cells and sports.

yes, I quite agree. Women are and should be entitled to single-sex spaces for fairness, equality, dignity and even just because. No argument.
Men need to solve the issue in Man Land, if they feel threatened by other men. It's not a problem that women need to be involved in, surely.

I'll never object to people using their preferred descriptors for themselves, even if I disagree with them.

I'll probably never object to people using their preferred descriptors for me, even if I disagree with them.

I'll rarely object to being expected to use other people's preferred descriptors for them, even if I disagree with them.

But I'll never use other people's preferred descriptors for me if I disagree with them, that's at least one step too far.

it doesn't mean that. to be cis you have to have a gender identity. most people don't.

There was an advert in a university toilet cubicle recruiting for a masters research saying “are you a cis-woman or transwoman?…”.

I had my wee, took out my pen and crossed ‘cis’ out. Very petty but I just get instantly riled by that term.

I do have that as well as my biological body though.
I'm not just what my body is, seems to some that's all it is which is fair enough

Your sexuality has nothing to do with whether you're trans or not though?

As a person I'm not just what my body is but that doesn't mean I have a gender identity. Woman just means adult female bodied person but it doesn't define what you're like in terms of personality traits, interests, morals etc. Some people seem to have a gender identity but It's not common, it's not innate, it's not essential.

No, but it confuses things doesn't it.

So a straight man becomes ( in their head) a gay woman and vice versa

The term 'to exist' is used by trans activists to mean something different from its usual meaning:

It's used to mean not just that transgender people exist (nobody is arguing that people who wish to identify as a different sex than theirs or no sex at all exist), but that their self-definition must take precedence over the self-definitions of all others:

'To exist' here means that they are whatever they state they are. This turns the terms 'woman' and 'man' into pure abstract feelings, and also erases the idea that 'women' refers to biologically female adult people. And this, in turn, means that we (those who don't possess an abstract gender identity at all but base on being women or men on our sexed bodies) can no longer exist.

Because the gender ideology in practice only attacks the female sex, we are now slowly approaching a view of the world where there is only one sex, the male one (where fathers are assumed to be male people, where men are not called ejaculators, where men's health is about male people etc.) and then this diffuse random category which replaces the female sex and makes it impossible to properly fight against sex-based oppression or the sex gap in earnings or sexual violence mostly from male people and mostly aimed at female people etc.

Nobody says they don't.

But cis people don't.

There are just transpeople, and men and women. No need for the "cis" - it's an unpleasant slur and most of us don't want to be described like that.

Why should transwomen and transmen get to insist that they are called trans, but women and men can't insist that they are called "woman' or "man"?

Edit - perennial war with autocarrot

I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess you are not transgender. A non-transgender person, in fact.

Here is a use in a sentence. “Non-transgender people do not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”

I am struggling to find how anyone can find that offensive.

Because we need to distinguish between transgender people and non-transgender people when discussing these issues. Being a woman (which is all that’s needed in most contexts) doesn’t stop you being a non-transgender woman, unless you are transgender of course.

We can very easily distinguish between them by calling them men and women and trans men and trans women.

Again, for the umpteenth time, trans women are a sub-set of men, not a sub-set of women. And trans men are a subset of women, not a subset of men.

"Non-disabled people do not have the protected characteristic of disability". Said nobody ever.
Non-cats are not cats Etc.
It's a meaningless statement.

The term 'to exist' is used by trans activists to mean something different from its usual meaning:

It seems to mean that you exist to the extent that other people validate you and your choices. If they don't, then this is "literal harm". It must be horrible to have your self worth so entirely dependent on other people.

As I said.

Transwomen and Women.

Transmen and Men.

Or, more appropriately:

Trans-identifying men and Men

Trans-identifying women and Women

What is so very difficult to understand? There is no need for "cis" anywhere.

You are overly complicating matters and adding a slur to the description of people who are not trans.

Absolutely, @Emotionalsupportviper!

I also think that trans rights campaigners would like trans women to have sole ownership of the words woman and girl - if trans women are women, but biological women are just cis women, then that means they are the real women and we have lost our entire sex class to a bunch of men in frocks.

I'd just say it means being a biological born woman

I think that is not what CIS woman
means. It means a female human who does not believe they are really a man, or one day a man, one day a woman, but supposedly believes in and is content with their ‘gender identity’ as a woman.

Trans people existing does not give anyone a right to call another person a word suggesting they are a counterpart to a trans person; or a word suggesting that their state of being a female human is an ‘identity’.

Yep

That's why I don't separate the "trans" from the "woman".

At first they insisted that "trans" was a prefix. ("It's LATIN, you bigots! Educate yourself."). They described themselves as "transwomen". Now they want to be "trans women" and use "trans" as an adjective.

They are effectively claiming that they are real women, just the same way as blonde women, black women, tall women, clever women etc are.