Listen up cis people! Educate yourselves!

[BettyBooper]

Read this and be told!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/sep/30/will-ferrell-harper-steele-netflix-documentary

Why? I don't give a damn if someone thinks I look like a man. Genuinely what bothers you? Is it concern for scaring your fellow fanny owners? Cos that's the only thing I can imagine being upset by.

Men have shouted far worse at me from vans (though not since I got my first GSD).

"fellow fanny owners" 🙄
I'm more than just a fanny owner even if that's how you just see yourself.
If you realise that we don't all just see ourselves as walking fannies like you do you might be able to imagine a bit more that others actually do feel upset at being called a man, or that they look like a man.

This seems somewhat...confused?

You don't want to be seen as "just" a human female, but you get annoyed when others don't see you as ... a human female?

I don't think I'm "just" a fanny owner but it is one of the things I am, and I recognise I have things in common with fanny owners that I don't have in common with non-fanny-owners. This ranges from the life and care of said fanny and the biological system around it, to the social and political experiences and needs of being a fanny-owner in a society that still gives us less respect, credibility and structural support as the non-fanny-owners.

Hence, feminism. For the fanny-owners because of what we have in common, regardless of what we have that is different. Not because that's all we are, but because that part of us has consequences that we cannot escape by pretending no one cares.

Why would a trans man "stick on a dress?"
They identify as men, but were born female.

Growing up in the 70s/80s I never thought that in my fifties people would be so wedded to the idea that only women or men claiming a female identity would wear a dress. And think that's progressive!

I'm all for men in dresses, if that's what they want to wear. If anyone remembers Layton on Strictly last year, he wore skirts and sparkly makeup etc, but nobody suggested he must be a woman - he was still a man. I applaud that.

I used to feel the same about Eddie Izzard who was always quite clear, in the past, that he was a straight man who happened to like some aspects of women's clothing.

I haven't seen this documentary and I have no intention of seeing it, and I'm sure that a particular issue won't be talked about.

From the looks of it Will Ferrel's friend is a heterosexual male, for the majority of people they keep their sexual fantasies and kinks private, when a heterosexual male like this "comes out" about being trans (Dr Ray Blanchard has a particular term) he is making his sexual desires his entire identity.

It really should be about how others have to deal with this outwardly expression of sexual desire.

Do you think the person actually mistook you for a man or were they just trying to insult you?

Well no, of course men can wear dresses too.
I was just saying trans men presumably want to pass as male though , and don't want to present as feminine in any way.
So why would they "just stick on a dress?"

Maybe they are big fans of Harry Styles clothing choices! Unless of course people think Harry doesn't look like a man in the photo below. I mean there's nothing that says feminine or female in these photos. They are just photos of a man in a dress.

Kurt Cobain used to wear one on stage.

So trans people only want to know what the rest of us think about them? Narcissist flag if ever I saw one.

Posters like Elle get my goat with their ‘assigned’ and ‘Cis’ nonsense
It’s bloody rude to persist when told it’s offensive
And I seriously wonder how they can believe TW are women and deny they’re men! I mean seriously? HOW? What belief system do you have to say that?
Some TW admit they’re men
Some TM admit they’re women
If they can see/say it, why can’t we???
(aware it may be to wind people up)

It’s bloody rude to persist when told it’s offensive

That's a bit hypocritical coming from "GC" posters on this board 😳😁

It does seem like a reminder too that 'cis' is absolutely meaningless to female people needs to be posted. I know many readers have seen this by now, but every time I post it, someone that I have never seen before reacts to it so the message seems to be getting out there.

Based on posts from another thread where a poster assured us that 'cis women' are what we should be talking about when referring to two male boxers who competed in the female category of boxing in the Paris Olympics, I decided that we need as many women who read these threads to understand just what that term means.

It is yet another point of clarity that the discussions around the male boxers brought.

The term 'cis' is meaningless because 'cis woman' also includes any male person who has a DSD and has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes, ie. a male person with a difference of sex development that have testes or testes tissue. Such as Caster Semenya.

Therefore, female people have no unique words that describe just those female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes. None.

There is no word left for female people. Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’.

To break it down, this is because 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male people who have been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but have a male body **.

2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis women/girls and Transwomen/transgirls.

However, these terms include:

Cis

(1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **

and

(3) Any person who has a female body^^

Trans

(2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

It is quite obvious to see the issue here? There is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes when some males too have forced society to now also accept the term 'female' refers also to them.

Cis always was a meaningless term. It was never fit for the purpose that we are told it is to be used for. I do though thank the posters who doubled down very hard on declaring two male boxers were 'cis women' because it really did show the break in the logic.

^^one formed around the production of large gametes regardless of whether those large gametes are ever produced.

**formed around the production of small gametes regardless of whether those small gametes are ever produced.

(sorry, the formatting on this post is probably higgly piggly, hopefully the pic helps. and apologies to all who have seen it before)

Maybe don't presume. Some transmen are very happy with a feminine presentation and feel that it represents the most authentic version of themselves.

There is nothing about gender identity or gender presentation that follows a set of rules that allow you to "presume". It's almost like that's the point.

It's rhetorical games. A seahorse isn't a special kind of horse, or any kind of horse. They're both animals, but seahorses are small bony fish and horses are large land mammals. Seahorses are named because they have a shape that reminds people of horses. We don't need to say "land horses", because we all recognise that seahorses aren't horses.

And we don't need to say "cis women" either. A transwoman isn't a special kind of woman. Transwomen and women are both people, but transwomen aren't any kind of woman. Whatever the characteristics are that make men and women different, transwomen have the men's characteristics not the women's. Like the characteristics that make a fish different from a horse.

Some people believe that transwomen should be seen as a specific kind of woman and not as a specific kind of man. But that doesn't change the reality. Even if seahorses wanted to be horses or genuinely believed that they were horses they'd still be fish not horses. Your seahorse farm would still have rockpools not fields.

given that she was assigned female at birth so presumably has cis female sex organs?

He doesn't have and never has had female sex organs. He failed a chromosome test, because he's XY male, as done to death on MN at the time.

Simply, undeveloped male genitals are not female genitals.

"given that she was assigned female at birth so presumably has cis female sex organs?"

The only relevant sex organs are testes and whether the body processes testosterone at all (ie. zero processing ability within that body, not even partial ability).

Malformed male genitalia are not 'female' genitalia, of course.

Assigned. Cis. So tired of this gobbledygook.

If transwomen want to call me cis I shall be calling them men.

'Cis' is an insult, and should be excised for all official documentation (NHS, etc). It is nothing more than a shifty sleight-of-hand to enable the implication that 'cis' and 'trans' are two types of women. Which they ain't.

Can you elaborate?

I'm so sick of this cis shit now, if this ridiculous ideology are so obsessed with labelling non trans people as cis, i'm almost tempted to suggest that we embrace it.

Fine then. You win. Let's have a fucking 'cis female' and 'cis male' category reserved for toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres etc. if it means men stay out of women's spaces, so be it. All places that need to be women only can be 'cis female only'.

But then I'm sure someone will find a way to fucking identify into that category too.

I did say almost tempted.

Well, there is the catch you see.

Because the word 'female' has been now used for male humans too.

So, no. Using 'female' and 'male' is also meaningless.

And again, this really did come to light during the discussions about the boxers. Because, we were told, those boxers had 'female' on their passports.

Now, of course, we also know that in countries with self ID any person can change their sex category in passports. And even a special group of people who have convinced a panel of people that they some how qualify as 'female' can change their passports and ID.

So, no. All words describing the unique body type of female people have been rendered meaningless. But we are supposed to celebrate this and accept it. Because.... kindness....

'Cis' is an insult, and should be excised for all official documentation (NHS, etc). It is nothing more than a shifty sleight-of-hand to enable the implication that 'cis' and 'trans' are two types of women. Which they ain't.

This. Absent a genderist belief system, as a "cis woman" is supposedly a "non trans" woman, it would mean that a "trans woman" would be a female person who identifies as a man.

Just to tie this back to another post on this page, because there is 'female' on the passports of these two male boxers, we then had some posters who declared most confidently based on no evidence at all, that the two boxers had female sex organs. When we know having 'female' in a passport and birth certificate does not mean that at all in some countries today.

And in some rare instances did not mean this in any case - it was just the default position for misogynist doctors who declared that the lack of a developed penis meant that the person was 'female'.

It also meant that we had some posters who used this legal falsehood to then dismiss a world sporting federation's evidence (that they were legally bound to keep mostly private). When the reality also was, that IF that world sporting federation had have been allowed to continue with their organisation of the sport as per previous history, those male boxers would have been excluded....

The inanity of the claims were rather eye opening. It actually helps though to understand what evidence claims being made on this thread and others are being supported by. Because it shows again how much of these discussions are based on nothing but emotional manipulative philosophical beliefs.