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

As has been said "cis" come from the trans lobby wanting to label people.
We must all fit into their boxes.
It used to be that a trans women would be called a trans woman and a trans man a trans man, they were (as a group) transsexuals many trans people still call themselves this as even the term trans has been changed to suit a narrative of you just have to say that you are trans to be trans.

It is also equally hypocritical to demand that someone call you a woman and then still call someone "cis" when they are told not to.

Zebrassiere

It is probable also worth mentioning that woman (and man) does not need a descriptor, they are what they are.
Where as trans woman and trans man needs the descriptor as a trans woman is not a woman or a trans man a man.

We don't talk enough about phenotype. The phenotoype is the observable expression of the genotype. I learned about phenotype when I did O level biology back in the 1970s.

Gregor Mendel was able to do his genetic experiments before anyone knew that genes existed, long before we were able to see chomosomes through a microscope or sequence genes. He found heritable observable traits in bean plants (probably ones carried on a single gene, though I am not sure) and he experimented with how they were passed down. He experimented with heritability by cross-pollinating plants with smooth and wrinkled seeds, and by breeding from plants with only smooth or wrinkled seeds. He discovered that traits were passed from both parent plants and could be recessive or dominant. He was able to do this because different genes have observable effects - the phenotype.

Of course not all genetic effects are as plain and clearcut as the bean seeds, even in plants. Some effects of genetic sex - XX versus XY chromosomes - are closer to points on a continuum. In humans it isn't always easy to distinguish genetic effects from environmental. But not all. Many important effects are still real, and the different effects are observable.

I know I have XX chromosomes because I have given birth. Even if I hadn't given birth I have other observable characteristics that make it impossible that I have XY chromosomes. I have a female phenotype, the observable expression of my female genes.

We can discuss what is and isn't part of the female phenotoype. We can argue over whether "good at maths" is part of a male phenotype or an acquired charcateristic or unrelated to genetic sex. We can discuss genetic oddities and exceptions and processes that could give some people a male genotype and some elements of a female phenotype, or vice versa.

We all know there are many physical aspects of the female phenotype, sports scientists know the female phenotype affects the whole body. Having a naturally grown and normally functioning fanny is a pretty good (not perfect) indicator of female phenotype. But we don't have to reduce the female phenotype to any single element, like having a fanny.

(edited to remove misplaced word)

You raise an interesting point.

I think for me there are two issues here. The first is wanting to classify everyone by reference to gender identity, and the second is which words you use to do that.

My view is, you're welcome to invent any identity for yourself that you like, but you shouldn't be cannibalising anyone else's identity in the process.

Let's just simplify things for a minute and imagine that all trans people are biological males who are completely harmless and just feel much more authentic presenting in a stereotypically feminine way. Fine. Good for them. If they believe this is an identity and come up with a term for that identity (for example, flying spaghetti monsters) and use that term to describe themselves, fine. If want everyone else to refer to them as flying spaghetti monsters, I also wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as we all understood that flying spaghetti monsters are a subcategory of men in situations where sex is relevant. If they believed they needed their own toilets and sporting categories for flying spaghetti monsters I'd be a bit sceptical but they'd be welcome to campaign for that.

But that's not what they've done. They've chosen the word "woman" for their identity. This means that anyone who is actually a woman gets co-opted into this identity whether she likes it or not, unless she then chooses to identify as something other than a woman. Our choice is simple: either we accept being colonised and agree to share the word "women" with people who are the opposite of what a woman is, or we accept being usurped, so these people are now women and we no longer are.

Why have they done this? Well, as far as I can see the only reason for doing it is so that they can access women's spaces and sports. These are the only situations in which we really distinguish between men and women in public life. These are the only areas where they need to be recognised as women in order to do something they cannot do as men, even if we all know perfectly well that they are not women. So this pretence benefits them and harms us.

As for the word "cis", it pre-supposes that there are two types of women: cis (female) women and trans (male) women. Simply by using this word or allowing it to be used about you, you are tacitly accepting the premise that a trans woman is also a woman.

So from my point of view, I cannot call a male person a woman and I will never accept being referred to as cis for exactly the same reason: because there is only one kind of woman, i.e. an adult female human.

If this all sounds a bit "my way or the high way", let's return to the first point I made. Why can't they think of a different word for whatever it is they believe they are identifying as? Then we can respect their identity and they can respect ours and we don't have to fight each other or tread on each other's toes? Well the answer is simple. Identifying as us is the whole point. They don't want their own box, they want to force their way into our box and then force us to remain in it with them. It only works as long as the rest of us (whether enthusiastically, grudgingly, or out of fear) play along and pretend we are all part of this imaginary sisterhood. You can bet your life that if we all collectively decided to relinquish the word "women", identified as trans men, non binary or flying spaghetti monsters and created our own spaces, today's trans women would start identifying as that and demanding access to those spaces.

I believe there are some trans women, such as India Willoughby for example, who do this very consciously and actively despise women. And I also believe that there are some "nice" trans women who just feel like the odd one out among other men, much prefer women, genuinely see themselves as one of the girls, and feel sad about mean TERFs who don't want to include them. But these trans women are just a variation on the "nice guy" theme. You know, the nice guy who believes you should want to date him because he's such a nice guy who will give you foot massages and slip love notes in your lunchbox and would never ever cheat, and doesn't understand that that's just not how emotions and human attraction work. Access to women (whether as romantic partners or as fellow users of a communal changing room) isn't a reward for being a nice person. We are autonomous human beings in our own right and there are limits to how you can influence our thoughts and feelings through your own behaviour. Sometimes we just don't want you hanging around for whatever reason, and that is our right.

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent with that last bit, but to come back to the point, it's not a trade off. We don't have to accept being called cis, or TERFs or worse, just because we don't refer to them as women and it's tit for tat. It's not tit for tat. If we reject the idea that "woman" is a word for a gender identity that they have, it's far more consistent to reject all of it, the preferred pronouns, the cis, the whole lot.

I'm not adding much to the debate here but I honestly can't believe that these days you can read a sentence that includes the words "female with a penis" and it's not some kind of joke lol. I do have hope for humanity though and luckily I have brought both my kids up to be critical thinkers and they know fact from fiction. I won't be watching this show but only because it will get right on my tits watching a bloke telling us about his very brave time being a woman. I have never met an actual woman who feels the need to announce how special and womanly they are though lol. He can be who he wants to be but I would openly laugh in any blokes face if he ever tried to talk to me as if he knows exactly what being a woman is. His first mistake would always be that women don't have, and were not born with a cock lol surely that's where the argument ends before it's even started.

Calling me cis is incorrect as I don't have a gender identity and do not agree with the ideology. I'm a woman and that is that is all that is needed.

Calling a man she/her is incorrect as those are the words used in English for females not males.

So not accepting cis and using correct sex pronouns is just being factual.

As for the word "cis", it pre-supposes that there are two types of women: cis (female) women and trans (male) women. Simply by using this word or allowing it to be used about you, you are tacitly accepting the premise that a trans woman is also a woman.

Yes. As soon as you say "land horses" you are accepting that seahorses must also be considered horses.

I think the hypocrisy comes from the trans movement. This is a movement that’s all about self-definition and ‘you don’t get to tell me who I am’ schtick. It’s about finding and living your ‘truth’ as you see it. So if you want to call yourself transgender, you can, but you don’t get to call me cisgender. What about my truth? My truth as a female who doesn’t have an inner gender identity?

I’ve accepted that some people believe they have inner gender identities that may or may not sit comfortably with their biological sex.

However, I don’t have a gender identity, so if you call me cisgender you are insulting me and disregarding my truth.

You can be a Flat Earther if you like, but you can’t force me to believe the Earth is flat, nor can you compel me to chant mantras about it, nor should you be trying to make laws and policies based on a Flat Earth belief system that I wholeheartedly reject.

Uh, no.

Firstly, GC posters are saying having a fanny is the common element of women. No one is saying that is all any individual woman is. Each individual woman is a complete human in her own right with many different elements and depths to her. The fact she has a female body is just one of the many elements of that person, but it is the female body and the social and physical consequences she expereinces because of that which is the thing she has in common with other women, as opposed to , say, her taste in music or what she likes to wear. That is not "reducing women [the people] to holes", it's just recognising the aspect of those people that makes them women is their biology.

Frankly, layering anything else onto womanhood seems very sexist and reductive of women. Women are complete humans who have female bodies. Her womanhood does not limit or define her in any way other than the fact of her body (and sadly in practice the sexism she may face because of it, but that's not part of her, it's a failing in society).

Secondly, despite what genderists and sexists claim - A FANNY IS NOT A HOLE!!!! It's a complex organ that forms part of the female body. It has many functions, one of which is sexual. Medical science is just about able to create a hole for fucking but has come nowhere near creating an actual functional vagina. There is a massive difference between saying "all women have fannies" (true bar the very small number of women with female DSDs where the fanny has not fully developed), "trans women with neo vaginas have fannies" (false, they have a cosmetic facsimile of some elements of a fanny), and ""I've got tits and a hole, which is basically what a woman is". (false, firstly because as above a hole is not a fanny, and secondly because even if ti was, a woman is not a person who woke up one day half way through adulthood and found a fanny had appeared overnight, a woman is someone who was born female and experienced life as a female person every single day of her life).

TL;DR: The problem you have is not really that other women recognise we all have fannies and are comfortable saying so, it's that you seem to equate a fanny with a fuckhole and therefore you feel it's offensive to say all women heve fannies, because to you that means all women are just fuckholes. But honestly, that is on you, it's how your mind is taking it not what is actually being said at all.

If you don't think the one thing women have in common is their fannies (as shorthand for their female body), what do you think all women have in common that means they are women and not men?

Irony is so difficult to use with only words. This is beautifully ironic.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

Storming post 👏👏👏

But that's not what they've done. They've chosen the word "woman" for their identity. This means that anyone who is actually a woman gets co-opted into this identity whether she likes it or not, unless she then chooses to identify as something other than a woman. Our choice is simple: either we accept being colonised and agree to share the word "women" with people who are the opposite of what a woman is, or we accept being usurped, so these people are now women and we no longer are.

Why have they done this? Well, as far as I can see the only reason for doing it is so that they can access women's spaces and sports. These are the only situations in which we really distinguish between men and women in public life. These are the only areas where they need to be recognised as women in order to do something they cannot do as men, even if we all know perfectly well that they are not women. So this pretence benefits them and harms us.

As for the word "cis", it pre-supposes that there are two types of women: cis (female) women and trans (male) women. Simply by using this word or allowing it to be used about you, you are tacitly accepting the premise that a trans woman is also a woman.

So from my point of view, I cannot call a male person a woman and I will never accept being referred to as cis for exactly the same reason: because there is only one kind of woman, i.e. an adult female human.

Well said.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom and @FlirtsWithRhinos , belting posts, thank you.

The fact she has a female body is just one of the many elements of that person
So don't just refer to us as fanny owners then.
As you say yourself it's just one element.

TL;DR: The problem you have is not really that other women recognise we all have fannies and are comfortable saying so, it's that you seem to equate a fanny with a fuckhole and therefore you feel it's offensive to say all women heve fannies, because to you that means all women are just fuckholes. But honestly, that is on you, it's how your mind is taking it not what is actually being said at all

Absolutely no idea how you get to that conclusion from what I said, I haven't said anything like that at all
Just people referring to us as fanny owners, or holes, is reducing us to walking body parts
As a pp said, individual women are made up of lots of different elements, so no to the dehumanising language of us.
"Fanny owners" 🙄 a "GC" description
Holes 🙄 a "trans person description
Both 😡 for that reason, nothing to do with "fuckholes" (what a disgusting term.)
I was just saying I find what GC people are coming out with on here far more offensive than being referred to as cis.

I've always seen most posters using cervix-havers and the like on these boards are consciously taking the piss of the organisations beclowning themselves with their sincere use of similar phrases. Although I've nrtff so apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick regarding your objections.

These organisations (the NHS, the BMA, etc.) are being mocked because they do know better, because it is offensive but we see them and they should be ashamed.

Why is it fair for a GC to both demand to not be called cis but at the same time refuse to use she/her pronouns for a trans woman?

I don't have the faintest problem with a person shouting 'cis' in my direction all day. It makes them a wanker, but it's their issue, not mine. I'm not going to follow anyone around shouting their biological sex for obvious reasons, but equally I'm not going to participate in bolstering a fantasy and pretending into a coerced reality because it makes someone happy at my expense. I will use their name, I will avoid pronouns, that's as polite as I'm willing to be, AND I expect reciprocal respect and consideration.

I am however not going to be using that silly, offensive term myself like a good girl and getting in my box so that more important people can enjoy pretending, and let's be honest about this, enjoy coercively controlling me.

How charming. 'Bitch' is a deeply unpleasant, sexist word and one I never use about other women.

Ergo individual attempting to 'educate' women about how they really should see women and womanhood is a raging misogynist.

What a shocker.

@TofuTart The whole point is that we no longer have a word to use to describe the adult female population!

1. Woman = inclusive of males who perceive themselves as such

2. Cis = excludes trans men, so not the adult female population, & presupposes a gender identity (which we don't understand or believe we have) & is in any case unrelated to the female body by which we seek to categorise ourselves (it's the one thing we share - as you acknowledge, we're infinitely diverse otherwise - and comes with distinct needs, so we believe we deserve a unique word to describe members of this group).

We used to have 1) - it's been taken from us (see above). We've been offered 2) - it's inadequate (see above).

We've also been offered...

3. ...Any number of dehumanising references to female anatomy, used even in the BMJ to refer to the adult female population since our language was taken from us. We reject this too, for the reasons you appreciate in your post. But, in the absence of anything else, we may ironically imitate it, which is how "fanny" was being used above. This is a established way of subverting an oppressor's use of language to oppress - see the re-appropriation of the N- word in Black rap, for example.

But, in the absence of anything else, we may ironically imitate it, which is how "fanny" was being used above. This is a established way of subverting an oppressor's use of language to oppress

Exactly. GC people do not unironically go around calling people vagina owners or fanny people or whatever. That's genderists. The words women and girls are perfectly adequate.

Just people referring to us as fanny owners, or holes, is reducing us to walking body parts

No it isn't. It's saying that's the only thing we all have in common.

The only person who thinks saying we all have a certain body part is reducing us to only being walking body parts is you. Ok I get that is how you read it, but it is not how anyone else means it so please stop accusing other people of thoughts that you have and then getting angry with us about it!

Saying "referring to us as fanny owners, or holes, is reducing us to walking body parts" is like saying "all violinists play the violin" reduces violinsts to just being people who play the violin. It's just describing what they have in common, not who they actually are.

Now ideally I'd be fine just being called a woman! But apparently that includes people who do not share the one thing I consider to be common to all women. Sometimes we do need langauge that is that specific about who we mean.

And just to re-highlight, the only person who thinks saying "hole" is the same thing as saying "fanny" is also you. Well, you, the misogynists and the genderists.

In fact, part of the reason we are in this mess is that genderists have maliciously flipped feminists quite rightly saying "don't reduce women to just a body part" into "don't define women by a body part" into "being a woman is nothing to do with body parts" - the latter meaning of course that if being a woman is nothing to do with your body it must be about how you think - which is far far far more sexist and reductive that saying a woman is any type of mind with a certain type of body!

Yes, fuckholes is disgusting. I'm sorry if you find my description of sexism more offensiive than the actual sexism of equating women talking about having fannies with men saying the basis of womanhood is a hole and tits, but I don't tidy up nasty concepts to make the people who hold them feel ok.

Being a woman, or a man is everything to do with body parts, because the bits of us that are noting to do with body parts are not exclusive to either sex!

So I'll ask you again, if sharing the one thing I consider to be common to all women, female biology, is not what makes a person a woman, what is?

I have a guess. Is it being a non-man?

This is of course defined as 'someone who is not a man'. A man is 'someone who identifies as a man' and no-one can mention 'adult human male' as that is a very naughty thing to say and is therefore completely verboten.

To come back to @Zebrassiere 's point about language and who is compelling whom:

I don't mind people who believe in a gender identity refering to we natal women (which is the only kind in my definition, but not in theirs) as 'cis' when discussing us because that is the correct term in their belief system. However, it is not OK to address us that way.

I am clearly a heretic to some religious people but to address me as the Heretic Amelia would be bloody rude. (although it's got a certain rakish charm...)

Addressing me as such is to impose their belief system, which I do not accept. I am not a heretic and I am not cis, because I am not fighting against God's teachings (because I don't believe in a deity) and I do not have a gender identity (so it cannot match or confilct with my sex.)

To refer to someone with a trans identity by their new name is perfectly polite. To refer to them with opposite sex pronouns is to force me to adopt their belief system that gender trumps sex, and that it's the significant characteristic. Again, it's like me calling someone religious A Believer In The Truth, when I think their belief is about as far from truth as it's possible to get.

Wasn't it the Green Party - which I joined to support the GC wing that has since been illegally thrust out - that had Non-men and Non-women categories, in a surrealist move that ought to be parody?

That was the Greens, yes.