EmpressaurusKitty · 09/04/2026 09:33

Despite the fact that I'm not fully masculine in everything I do and all my behaviours, I still identify as a man because I have no reason to otherwise.

Oh, @FairHippopotama is a teenage bloke. That explains even more.

WittyLimeBiscuit · 09/04/2026 10:03

No, I don't. There have always been same sex attracted people who do not conform to the norms of supposedly feminine and masculine behaviour. But that is not the same thing as the relatively recent phenomenon of gender identity ideology. The rise in gender confusion is a direct result of this ideology being pushed in schools.

EmpressaurusKitty · 09/04/2026 10:16

WittyLimeBiscuit · 09/04/2026 10:03

No, I don't. There have always been same sex attracted people who do not conform to the norms of supposedly feminine and masculine behaviour. But that is not the same thing as the relatively recent phenomenon of gender identity ideology. The rise in gender confusion is a direct result of this ideology being pushed in schools.

Edited

Could you clarify which post you’re replying to, @WittyLimeBiscuit?

Original poster

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 10:35

EmpressaurusKitty · 09/04/2026 03:29

When people claim that they must actually really be a woman or man because of how they feel or present, even though they’re the opposite sex, they’re reinforcing gender stereotypes, not fighting them.

That's true, and that's one of the flaws in the gender-affirming movement. They use gender non-conformity as evidence of being trans but also claim to recognise that feminine men and masculine women are equally as valid as masculine men and feminine women.

But I was referring to choosing to associate yourself with how men/women are treated and seen by society. That's different from saying 'I like football and playfighting so I must be a boy, not a girl'.

OP posts:

Original poster

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 10:49

OldCrone · 09/04/2026 04:26

She may not ultimately be male, but that doesn't mean I have to cause offence and use feminine pronouns and her deadname in front of her. Maintaining a level of respect for others' feelings sometimes comes above the truth.

So you don't want to offend your sister by using terms she would find upsetting. Fair enough, she's your sister and you don't want to upset her.

But in later posts you say this regarding offence:

I actually had no idea that the gender-critical movement was this opposed to the term 'cisgender', to the extent that some of you seem to think you are agender. Although I now recognise the offence some people take, I will continue to use it because (a) I am simply using it to mean someone who isn't trans, someone who doesn't consider themselves to have transitioned, (b) it's widely seen as a neutral term, and (c) I don't think your offence is reasonable. I am sorry for our disagreement.

And this:

I am not setting out to offend; I am simply not censoring myself despite knowing I might cause offence. You are being hypocritical: the standard you are trying to impose would also restrict you and others who are gender-critical from saying certain things because they are offensive. I assume you would not do that. I can't think of a single forum platform that would ban me for using it--not Reddit, not Twitter, not 4chan; not even Mumsnet (hopefully).

Apparently it's OK to cause offence to loads of women you don't know by insisting on using terms that you know they find offensive.

You're not setting out to offend, but when you've been told that you're being offensive you say you don't think our reaction is reasonable and you're going to carry on doing it anyway.

Perhaps you should have a little think about who's really being hypocritical here.

I'll see if I can find a link to the special rules on language which were imposed on us here about 10 years ago regarding terms which both sides find offensive, since you so obviously have no knowledge of the background of this debate.

I haven't even started university yet (I'm on my gap year at the moment); 'language we threw back at you years ago' makes no sense given my age.

As for this... If you're going to jump into a discussion that some of us have been involved in since you were in primary school, it might be worth looking at the history of this discussion rather than mansplaining your half-baked ideas to us.

Show quote history

If I were to use feminine pronouns rather than masculine pronouns, that would be very contentious. It's only the critical 'side of the aisle' which would support that, and neutral works typically use any requested pronouns. I don't seek to debate with my sister as well; I would be using these words to refer to her in everyday contexts.

I am actively debating/arguing/discussing some of the concepts relating to the gender-affirming movements through this post. It's removed from any specific person or people; 'cis women' is not a personal attack. Here, 'the truth' matters more than respecting others' feelings: I would rather use standard terminology that only means and connotes 'non-trans' for the majority of people (and is what I intend it to) rather than use politically sided language. The contexts of each situation are completely different and that's why my actions are different.

I'm trying to look at this discussion more in-depth through this post.

I don't think it's very fair to portray this as a 'half-baked idea' of mine. I didn't create the term 'cisgender'. I am not the only person who uses the word.

OP posts:

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 10:52

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 10:49

If I were to use feminine pronouns rather than masculine pronouns, that would be very contentious. It's only the critical 'side of the aisle' which would support that, and neutral works typically use any requested pronouns. I don't seek to debate with my sister as well; I would be using these words to refer to her in everyday contexts.

I am actively debating/arguing/discussing some of the concepts relating to the gender-affirming movements through this post. It's removed from any specific person or people; 'cis women' is not a personal attack. Here, 'the truth' matters more than respecting others' feelings: I would rather use standard terminology that only means and connotes 'non-trans' for the majority of people (and is what I intend it to) rather than use politically sided language. The contexts of each situation are completely different and that's why my actions are different.

I'm trying to look at this discussion more in-depth through this post.

I don't think it's very fair to portray this as a 'half-baked idea' of mine. I didn't create the term 'cisgender'. I am not the only person who uses the word.

Show quote history

Most people don’t have a clue what “cis” means. It’s meaningless genderist jargon. It just speaks to your own cognitive bias.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 10:55

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 07:00

No, it wasn’t coined to denote “non trans”. It’s an article of faith. There are not two sexes of women. So called “trans women” are just a type of man. If “cis” was a neutral term which just meant “non trans”, a “trans woman” would be a woman who identifies as a man, wouldn’t she? Not a man. But it’s not used for that by genderists, like you. So it’s rejected by most of us as a label.

Show quote history

Instead of mansplaining further to feminist women, how about you try to grasp that “cisgender” isn’t a neutral term at all @FairHippopotama

i don’t want to be defined in the terms of your absurd belief system, thanks.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 10:56

That’s if you genuinely are interested in the views of women on this thread you started, as you claim.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 09/04/2026 11:01

A swift reminder that the recent spate of ploppers, "you're all transphobes", and similar threads from new usernames is to stop us from talking about

the Finnish study

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5513703-finnish-study-on-transition-and-psychiatric-outcomes-in-sex-and-gender-shows-increased-psychiatric-morbidity

Original poster

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 11:03

KillTheTurkey · 09/04/2026 05:58

Your age probably explains your perspective.

We are almost certainly all older than you, by a decade or three. In those decades, we (most of us) have raised families and forged careers. We will have taken on the vast majority of childcare and sacrificed (part of) our careers to do this. We didn’t do this because we identify as women (we don’t), we did this because we ARE women: we have breasts to feed with, we gestate and give birth. We see the oppression and the inequality we are subject to, and we are angry that ‘being a woman’ (as described above) can be reduced to a feeling.

When I was 18, I’d probably have agreed with you, because I didn’t know what it felt like to be 45, perimenopausal, have birth injuries, do all the night feeds because breastfeeding, carry the life admin, be the breadwinner, navigate SEND issues, do an MSc while holding down a job, et cetera.

Show quote history

You're probably right.

I think this shows how poisoned the middle ground in this debate seems to be though. Neither side can tried to meet in the middle because not only do they disagree re. certain concepts like gender identity, they disagree about the fundamental terminology that should be used when discussing the subject.

I think it's worth commenting though that without an inherent gender identity, there is no divide between gender and sex. For people who aren't transgender, their gender is equivalent to the one corresponding to their sex. It's only trans people that provide a need for exception. I wasn't saying that all non-trans people opt-in to being men/women. I wasn't even saying that trans people 'opt-out'; it can't be helped for a lot of them. Some of you may not think any transitions are based on valid grounds; while that may be true for some part, especially today compared to twenty years ago, there's also definitely a part which aim to transitionboth socially and medicallybecause of severe dysphoria that arises at a very young age and cannot be helped. The only treatment in that case is transitioning.

OP posts:

SpanishFlea · 09/04/2026 11:03

Woman/female
Man/male

Trans-identified male/transwoman
Trans-identified female/transman

There you go - no cis needed.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 09/04/2026 11:08

I think it's worth commenting though that without an inherent gender identity, there is no divide between gender and sex.

The thing is, I still don't know what gender is, other than a bunch of stereotypes. For me, there doesn't need to be a divide because there is only sex. No gender identity because gender is just a social construct and not an actual thing.

Can you articulate exactly what you understand gender to mean, without reference to tired stereotypes about men/women or boys/girls. I don't think it's possible, because the term has no meaning.

Wearenotborg · 09/04/2026 11:09

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 11:03

You're probably right.

I think this shows how poisoned the middle ground in this debate seems to be though. Neither side can tried to meet in the middle because not only do they disagree re. certain concepts like gender identity, they disagree about the fundamental terminology that should be used when discussing the subject.

I think it's worth commenting though that without an inherent gender identity, there is no divide between gender and sex. For people who aren't transgender, their gender is equivalent to the one corresponding to their sex. It's only trans people that provide a need for exception. I wasn't saying that all non-trans people opt-in to being men/women. I wasn't even saying that trans people 'opt-out'; it can't be helped for a lot of them. Some of you may not think any transitions are based on valid grounds; while that may be true for some part, especially today compared to twenty years ago, there's also definitely a part which aim to transitionboth socially and medicallybecause of severe dysphoria that arises at a very young age and cannot be helped. The only treatment in that case is transitioning.

Show quote history

So without using outdated, sexist stereotypes, can you describe what gender is?

Sunshineandgrapefruit · 09/04/2026 11:14

Honestly no. I think people labelling themselves like this is extremely unhelpful and divisive and trying to insist everyone else picks a label - or even worse - labelling others is not ok. People are who they are. They like what they like. Everybody is different.

SilenceInside · 09/04/2026 11:14

"It's only trans people that provide a need for exception." - um, well, no. Every single girl and woman who objects to the crap foisted upon her due to society's idea of gender needs an exception to this. Or to bin it altogether and consider instead that there is a person's sex, and then there is their own individual personality.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 09/04/2026 11:20

Also, on the point of trans people who are struggling with the perception that they have somehow been born in the wrong body...I feel immense compassion for those people and I strongly believe that they are deserving of proper support, but I don't believe that this necessarily means that we have to validate their perceptions.

Think about people who have anorexia, for example. They may be dangerously thin while wholeheartedly believing that they are too fat. A compassionate response would not be to validate the perception that they are fat and encourage them to behave as if they were fat. Quite the contrary, in fact. A compassionate response would be to recognise that their perceptions are not aligned with the reality and put appropriate specialist support in place to challenge those perceptions in a sensitive manner and help them gradually adopt a more realistic perspective.

Original poster

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 11:22

Wearenotborg · 09/04/2026 06:07

So none then? So without using sexist, outdated stereotypes, how would a male know he “felt like a woman”? Unless he is sexist and misogynistic enough to believe all women feel and think the same way, how would he know? What frame of reference is he using?

Show quote history

These stereotypes may be sexist and outdated, but they still exist. Many women still adhere to them, especially in terms of external appearance. It's not about males who 'feel' as if they are female but males with intense hatred of the fact that they are male, and a belief that they should have been born female, with all the social challanges and expectations that come from that. A 'frame of reference' isn't really needed at this point; it's a neurological thing.

In order to try to 'pass' as being born female, they associate themselves with these expectations, roles, and norms. That's when they might use gendered stereotyoes as a frame of reference, but as I said above, they are still largely adhered to in many ways: you don't see many tradeswomen, you don't see men in dresses, women are still expected to be kind and verbal, men are still expected to be boisterous and physical.

OP posts:

TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne · 09/04/2026 11:25

The issue is I'm not always referring just to women, and even if I am, there's a number of people who would include transwomen (i.e. males) in that

Not on this board.

Understand your audience FFS.

Original poster

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 11:28

NecessaryScene · 09/04/2026 06:20

I don't understand, given all of the above, how such a term can be seen as offensive. I am consigning you to a subset of your gender rather than your sex.

The fact that you've just "given all of the above" is the offense. To accept the usage requires accepting a whole heap of misogyny.

Specifically:

the "taking it for granted that society associates" these men with women. We don't, and society clearly doesn't because they don't get treated like women at all. They're treated like Very Special Men You Can Never Say No To. For "trans ally" men, they often find it hard to conceal their "bros before hos" glee about supporting men doing "womaning" properly, and the opportunity of unleashing a whole heap of invective on women who don't comply.
Claiming that these men are women. "By definition", no less!
Saying we have "trans women" now meaning "men who say they're women" (with a new definition of women) rather than "women who say they're men".
"Your gender". Did you just assign us a gender? How are you determining women's gender is the same as a trans-identifying man's? Are you only paying attention to what's in the mans' head here?

If your usage didn't do all that - if by "cisgender women" you meant "women who don't claim they're men", and "transgender women" you meant "women who do claim they're men". there would be (at least to me) much offense involved. It would just be in-group language separating sex focussed around the "trans" group. But as it stands, it's extremely offensive due to the redefinition of "woman" that goes along with it.

'Female' and 'woman' are sex and gender respectively, right?

And going back to this - clearly, no. They're an adjective and a noun. It's clearly not workable to consistently use only an adjective for one meaning, and use only a noun for another, as you can see in general usage. They end up being flipped between as if they're thesaurus alternatives, without meaning distinction.

I've only ever seen "transgender female" used in the press as a synonym for "transwoman". We've long used "trans-identified female" here, in an attempt to be clear, but in the world that says "trans women are women", "female" is routinely used for males.

You're trying to claim a compromise position that's already been demonstrated to be unworkable - neither "female" nor "woman" are being reserved for actual women.

The whole point is that 'female' is reserved for 'actual women' as sex is biological, while gender is not because it is societal. That's the difference between sex and gender. Unless you don't count trans-identifying women as actual women, but I don't know how to proceed from there.

OP posts:

TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne · 09/04/2026 11:28

........what would you do if you saw a transwoman in the toilets?

I'd tell him to go to the gents' because he's a man, and because of the SC ruling.

TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne · 09/04/2026 11:29

Unless you don't count trans-identifying women as actual women

They are women.

........but I don't know how to proceed from there

Yes, you do.

TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne · 09/04/2026 11:31

I don't think it's very fair to portray this as a 'half-baked idea' of mine. I didn't create the term 'cisgender'. I am not the only person who uses the word

You're the one who's being unfair.
You've been told repeatedly that we find this term offensive but you've carried on using it.

TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne · 09/04/2026 11:32

........'cis women' is not a personal attack

It is.

Original poster

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 11:33

alliumursinum · 09/04/2026 07:16

Well Tarquin on his gap year, yah and onepostwonder (have I told you my teen transition story before?) have set me up for the day!

I don't call it my gap 'yah'...

OP posts:

TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne · 09/04/2026 11:36

FairHippopotama · 09/04/2026 11:33

I don't call it my gap 'yah'...

Show quote history

Neither did anyone else.

Do you feel that gender identity exists and is innate?

the Finnish study