If transwomen are women, and women are cis women, are transwomen cis women?

[Superlambaanana]

Obviously not. They're men. But how can transwomen insist on being women and then recategorise women as cis women without it exposing their whole position as fundamentally flawed?

Cis women are women.
Trans women are women.

Thankfully the NHS are starting to realise that pretending this is the case is not ok.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68923861

@ButterflyHatched

oh give over you loon

A woman is a woman
A trans woman is a trans woman

noun
noun: transwoman

1. a person who was registered as male at birth but who lives and identifies as a woman; a transgender woman.

woman
noun

1. an adult female human being.

😂

Ah the racism rears its ugly head yet again.

Are you ok? You do realise that transwomen are male right? As in men?

lol nope

TW are men

Probably. Because light is a wave and a particle at the same time and yet it is also a cat in a box.

Or is it more like a man who says he is a non-binary transwoman. A lot of absolute bollox quantum uncertainty there.

Trans women don’t have female reproductive organs and certainly cannot ‘grow’ a cervix.

This is only true IF one subscribes to the contested an unevidenced assertions that

1. there is a commonality of mind shared by most Female people and some male people that is so significant it is a more meaningful way to group those people than body sex for almost all social and legal.purposes

2. this commonality of mind should be given the name "Woman" that previously referred to a physical fact of the body

3. Because this commonality of mind is called Woman, it gives unquestionable access to all pre-existing rights, protections and opportunities under the word Woman and associates those of this mind with the historic experience of womanhood despite these things in reality having referred to a different group, the female-bodied.

4. the fact of the body previously called Womanhood has no significance to the lives of those who share it and therefore needs no name, no social or legal recognition, no link to its history within society, and does not give any access to the rights, protections and opportunities originally set up to support it.

Of course IF one agrees with these 4 statements then Hatched's understanding of trans and cis referring to male and female women works fine.

However guven that these four statements are extreme and very contested, they need very strong evidence and shoulas not as Hatched has simply be taken as read and preassumed to be accepted when justifying the use of cis and trans.

(Oh, and because I can't accept poor logic on my own side either, IF one did accept the premises above, trans women aren't cis women in the same way that dogs and cats are both animals but dogs aren't cats. The logic fail of course happens because OP tangled up the two meanings of woman here. This is something the sleight of language that took the original word women was cynically deigned to do, to encourage people to accidentally treat trans women, woman only under a new definition, as if they were female people, women only under the old definition).

Cis women do not exist.
Transwomen are men.

There have been several women who have identified as transwomen and been vilified for it.

However it very neatly shows the falsity of that mantra. And yes, leveraging black women into the false proof that males can be female is racist. Yet, extreme trans activists continue to do this. Showing that they are unable to think of anyone else’s needs.

I agree with the thrust of your point, op (that there is an awful lot of nonsense and incoherence in trans ideology), but I am pained by a flaw in your thread title, which contains "women are cis women" as part of its antecedent.
Trans ideologists don't believe that "women are cis women". They famously believe that only some women are cis women. The difficulty they have is characterising what makes a woman "cis" without acknowledging sex.

Came to say the same. There’s no logic, it’s all about your feelings and your soul, apparently.

Yes to this

'Trans' implies that that particular woman is in fact male. TW are a sub set of men, not a sub-set of women. Women are female.

Tall and short are just adjectives that can be applied to any group.

What is a woman?

I am often tempted to report posts like this.
But I am a robust person and believe there is huge value in letting these posts stand so all can see the ingrained racism of TRAs.

They just don't/can't see it themselves. See also our recent library thread visitor.

Women of colour are NOT a subset of women.

@FlirtsWithRhinos

Bravo 👏 Great post.

There's no need for any of this, I'm a man, a bloke I'm not a cis bloke, and trans women are just men who like to act or live like a woman they are genetically 100 percent a bloke.

What is live like a woman?

Cis and Trans are useful ways of communicating details about the many different groups of people who are all women, just like 'tall' and 'short' and 'black' and 'white', but you already know that.

That is nonsense on stilts. For any defined property, there are going to be a range of objects instantiating that property but differing in many other respects. However, there is one way in which they can not, by definition, vary -- ie in respect of whether or not they instantiate that property.
The term "woman" has a meaning. Just like the terms tall and short have a meaning. Women can and do vary in every respect other than the one respect in virtue of which they instantiate the property of being a woman.

If you want to claim that they can vary in that respect, then how can you attach meaning to, say, the idea of "tall women"? Surely you would be committed to saying that there are all kinds of tall women, including women of every possible height. You would be committed to dividing these women into "cis tall women" (ie those who really do instantiate the property of being a tall woman) and "trans tall women" (who don't).

You might also be committed to saying that there are all kinds of "trans women", including those who do instantiate the property of being trans (we could call these "cis trans women") and those who do not ("trans trans women").

Nonsense on stilts.

Everything about it falls apart as soon as it’s put to any test of logic.

if anyone can instantly and magically be the opposite sex just by saying so, and other people are meant to respect that and go along with it, sex classes have no meaning at all. It can’t be defined as “whatever I say” any more than you can sort foxes from chickens by sticking random labels on them. It just obliterates the original meaning of the words to the point where’ll you’ll just need new words.

Sex is supposed to not exist and be a social construct, yet oddly enough trans people seem to know which opposite-sex hormones they want to take to try to change the sex of their bodies, and which bits to cut off and emulate. Being “non-binary” means rejecting identifying with either of two sexes. Yet we’re told if we think there are two sexes we didn’t progress beyond primary school biology.

It’s ok for TW to be in women’s sports and changing rooms because sport is unfair anyway, or women can get attacked in a toilet anyway. Women don’t have a physical disadvantage. Women are more violent than men and so on. So why are there women’s categories in the first place and why do males want to be in them?

Self-id is essential because everyone is who they say they are. So that means a male being in a women’s space is not safe, as whoever’s he’s afraid of can also self-Id into that space.

apparently brain scans can prove you can have an opposite sexed brain. But we don’t want brain scans as a test to check who is really trans to avoid people making a mistake or to stop predators exploiting self-Id. Oh no that would be gatekeeing!

sex is a “spectrum” which somehow means you can magically announce yourself to be somewhere on the spectrum that you are not and can never be. But this doesn’t apply to ethnicity, height, disability or age, which are all actually spectrums.

and on and on….

Surely then my whole thread title is flawed, as transwomen are not actually women. But I take your well made point.

I really would genuinely like to hear a coherent argument from someone on the pro-trans side, which deals with issues like 'cis' and how women can be simultaneously categorised as different and also the same. But of course no such coherent argument exists. And if India Willoughby is the trans-lobby's 'reasonable voice' God help us all.