RoF CIS women

How many times have you been personally negatively or positively impacted by a real-world encounter with a trans person?  Articles in the news, or online cancellings/twittercripfights etc. don't count.

 

There a lot of "this doesn't affect you, so your view doesn't count", so keen to know how it has affected you.   I'm guessing vanishingly few of you have just missed out on a professional sporting career, or been forced to share a cell with Big Davina.

 

thanks

You are begging to be publicly shamed and punished, aren't you. 

Never took you for such a fetishist. 

okay, for "cis" please read "woman whose gender and sex at birth were both noted as female on their birth cert".  Didn't realise that was also a charged term.

 

 

Say natal if you have to, but preferably just women, please.

And in terms of personal experience, more times than you could count. If you are specifically speaking of the TRA movement, then its still in hundreds of instances.

I'm not sure what you are seeking to prove here. Is your thinking that this is all about whether a transwoman has ever threatened us to our faces? If so, you really don't understand what this is about.

 

 

I'll bite (even though I agree with linda about the annoying "cis" prefix).

The answer is, of course, none, precisely because of the ordinariness of my daily life (which despite your vaguely sneery tone, is a good thing).   And that, my dear, is kinda our point - this is a battle that didn't need to be fought, because on a day to day basis, there has been no fight : I work with trans women, and I cannot imagine them using the men's toilet, that would be bizarre (although I may be unusual in not being remotely bothered by the concept of unisex toilets anyway, other than the fact that men are pigs - that's what doors are for).

I have my hair done by transgender hairdressers, my fricking local Sainsburys has at least 2 trans women that I'm aware of and no one, young or old, male or female gives a damn, their peaceful, unbothered existence takes nothing away from mine and their trans status is literally the least important thing about them, as far as I am concerned.

But the situations you refer to are extraordinary, and they are bound to receive extraordinary responses, but as I have said before, the battle was brought to us, and not the other way around.

I'm trying to understand how someone (outside of a battle between RECOGNISE-ME/I-DON'T-REGOGNISE-YOU) has been impacted by trans people.  There aren't that many around.  I've had contact in the real world with 3 in total. So just trying to gauge the real depth of "you don't get it, it doesn't affect you", by reference to how natal women have actually been impacted in normal life.

I am constantly being misgendered by people calling me "cis".

Apparently misgendering is a hate crime so I would like them to stop.

I also no longer know whether I am a woman or not.

I'm not trying to be sneery, and sorry if I came across as such.  I am genuinely baffled by how angry this issue makes people. I have a different PoV to a lot of people here, but don't see myself marching for/against it as an issue. It seem a fringe thing and requires v little to give people with difficult lives a slightly easier life.  

 

If you want to be credibly regarded as "trying to understand", Jelly, maybe drop the sneery presumptions in your OP, read what has been written or even try asking neutrally.

Anyway, the question was to understand how transwomen is so difficult for people to accept based on personal experience, rather than the conceptual pov.

Is "cis" a misogynistic term of itself? I don't like/accept the term at all but it's used for men as well.

It's not misogynistic, it's just disrespectful of anyone who doesn't believe in gender woo woo because it defines us by reference to a set of essentially religious beliefs which we don't share.

It's also pretty insulting for women to be reduced to a sub-category of our own sex. I guess the same applies to men, except for the fact that nobody is really trying to force men to say that trans men are men because nobody actually cares.

I don't think many roffers are from either a city in the Rio Grande de Norte in Brazil, or a province in South Africa (tho' as any fole knows since 1994 it has been KwaZulu-Natal).

A natal star makes sense, as a star that was present at the time of birth.

'Natal woman' makes no sense at all.  How could a person not be present at their own birth?

You may as well say a 'Created creation'.

 

TB, cis isn't sexist per se, but in some contexts it is used to enforce a particular ideology that is misogynistic. TERF is incontrovertibly misogynistic though.

again - didn't mean to come across as sneery.  the reason for the OP was every time this gets heated, people raise: puberty blockers handed out like smarties; prisoners; and athletes.

I said on the other thread that there's are difficult bits at the edges, but the middle ground looks less fraught, so am trying to see if there is a middle ground that is not discussed.  

To answer your OP more seriously, Jelly, do things need to have directly affected us personally before we are allowed to care about them?

Do I need to wait to be raped before I can legitimately get upset about the fact that there are now no longer single sex support services for female rape victims which exclude all male people, because organisations such as Stonewall have successfully lobbied to have them forced to include trans women or else defunded and shut down?

Because I could be raped tomorrow and find myself in that situation. Obviously I hope I am not, but if I were, I would want people who had not been raped to care enough to speak up.

There's a lot more that gets said than that, but TRA activists often choose to keep the focus on the marginal cases as a way of undermining our concerns.

yes, there is a chance you could be raped, and there's a chance that you could be in a rape counselling group which has a trans woman in it, but that chance is vanishingly small.  I could be raped by a woman and find myself in a very similar situation.  And I agree that rape counselling for trans women and natal women is something that needs to be sensitive to all concerned, but if we give people that option (noting that trans women need these services too) are you supportive?

yes, there is a chance you could be raped, and there's a chance that you could be in a rape counselling group which has a trans woman in it, but that chance is vanishingly small.  I could be raped by a woman and find myself in a very similar situation.  And I agree that rape counselling for trans women and natal women is something that needs to be sensitive to all concerned, but if we give people that option (noting that trans women need these services too) are you supportive?

other than the fact that men are pigs
 

cru my dear, you state that this is a fact. Please could you provide evidence that men are, in fact, porcine.

Otherwise i will have to assume you are a MERF (as LvP noted should be the correct acronym on the other thread)

Yes, Fluffy. I suspect that is what he meant. Such baiting seems at odds with the ‘Aw shucks, I’m just trying to understand’ schtick.

yes, there is a chance you could be raped, and there's a chance that you could be in a rape counselling group which has a trans woman in it, but that chance is vanishingly small.

You're missing the point. I would want to find a rape counselling group which a trans woman would not be allowed to join, and as things currently stand, such groups do not exist.

Of course I agree that trans women can be raped and need support services too, but that's not the issue here because they currently have access to all of them and it is the female victims who need single sex services who are not being provided for.

"Otherwise i will have to assume you are a MERF (as LvP noted should be the correct acronym on the other thread)".

You go right ahead, hotnow, like I give a sh!t.  I will assume that you are a small man (mentally), with a teeny tiny dick (or, one that doesn't work / looks bad / you don't use well - delete as appropriate), and who, despite allegedly having found one to marry him, is afraid of wimmin, cos they make his insides feel all fluttery and his knees go all wobbly, and he doesn't like it one little bit.

Plus ca change, am I right?

Sorry I mean the last sentence of it.

Obviously anyone can be raped and they all need access to appropriate support services, regardless of their sex or gender identity.

But female rape victims often need exclusively single sex support, because they are traumatised by male bodied people. This isn't a small sub category; it is arguably a very large proportion of rape victims.

And organisations which were providing exclusively single sex services for female victims no longer are, despite this being explicitly permitted under the Equality Act, due to bullying by the likes of Stonewall.

How is that even remotely acceptable?

Elfffi04 Jan 22 15:25ReplyReport

I don't think many roffers are from either a city in the Rio Grande de Norte in Brazil, or a province in South Africa (tho' as any fole knows since 1994 it has been KwaZulu-Natal).

A natal star makes sense, as a star that was present at the time of birth.

'Natal woman' makes no sense at all.  How could a person not be present at their own birth?

You may as well say a 'Created creation'.

u do know some words have more than 1 definition, right?

so if we all agree (as I do) that you shouldn't put people in a rape counselling session with others whose presence may hinder the object of the session, then all's well?

so if we all agree (as I do) that you shouldn't put people in a rape counselling session with others whose presence may hinder the object of the session, then all's well?

It would be if that were the case. But it's not.

Because of trans activists insisting that everything must be inclusive of trans people.

Totally agree with the OP. There may be some hard limit cases but they can and should be dealt with on a case by case basis.  You don’t need to find a single rule that determines the appropriate approach for every sport and every women’s crisis centre and so on. You can however adopt a general approach of treating all people as in accordance with their wishes and not as perverts. It’s also hard to see people (especially lawyers who presumably strive for clarity and concision in most of their communications) as arguing in good faith when they pointlessly require reference to «people whose assigned birth sex matches the gender identity typically associated with that sex » instead of the totally non pejorative synonym cis. 

so if we exclude trans people from everything, you'll be happy?

Jelly, you are arguing in bad faith here and I think you know it.

Do you think that female people should have the right to some single sex spaces and services exclusively for female people, or not in any circumstances?

And do you think that female people should have the right to identify and discuss themselves as a class of female people which does not include male people? If so, what is the word for that class of female people?

My limited personal experience of trans people (school teacher, person in a position of responsibility at university) have been positive. I'm supportive of trans people, appreciate that they suffer prejudice and practical challenges and don't wish them any ill.

However, I do object to this skirting around using the term "women" (where this is relevant) and referring to us by e.g. our body parts/processes to avoid causing offence to trans people. (Glaring examples are the Royal College of Midwives failing to refer to "women" or "mothers" at all in its safe sleeping guidance, referring instead to "postnatal people", and the Lancet referring to "bodies with vaginas" on its cover.) I also object to opening up certain women only spaces to those who self identify as women without further safeguards - although this is unlikely to ever affect me personally.

There are some nice examples in this article on what we lose by introducing gender neutral language in certain contexts: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/pregnant-women-people-feminism-language/620468/:

Perhaps a comparison will help. The same progressives who push for pregnant people have no problem saying “Black Lives Matter”—and in fact decry the right-wing rejoinder that “all lives matter.” Yet, hopefully, all lives do matter—and about half of the people shot by U.S. police are white. So why insist on Black? Because the phrase is designed to highlight police racism, as well as the disproportionate killing of Black men in particular. Making the slogan more “inclusive” also makes it useless for political campaigning.[…]

"And if we cannot talk about, say, the Texas abortion law in the context of patriarchal control of women’s bodies, then framing the feminist case against such laws becomes harder. No more “men making laws about women.” Instead we get: “Some people who are in charge of policy want to restrict the rights of some other people. We oppose that because people’s rights are human rights!” […]

A few weeks ago, the ACLU gave a vivid demonstration of the problem when it amended Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s famous legal opinion to read: “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person’s] life, to [their] well-being and dignity … When the government controls that decision for [people], [they are] being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for [their] own choices.” […]

But the organization wasn’t alone in trying out the new orthodoxy and then realizing how useless it can be for making a political point. Here is the snap reaction from Joe Biden’s Twitter account to an outrageous law that promises private citizens a bounty for turning in anyone who helps a vulnerable woman procure an abortion: “Texas law SB8 will significantly impair people’s access to the health care they need—particularly for communities of color and individuals with low incomes,” wrote Biden (or, more likely, a young staffer). “We are deeply committed to the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade and will protect and defend that right.”

[…] Another way to write the Biden tweet would be: “The new Texas abortion law is an attack on women and their right to receive medical care. It will hurt poor women most, and Black women, and Latina women. We will defend the constitutional right to abortion.” In politics, making a point that most people can’t understand is not very inclusive. (Presumably, the White House agrees with me, because Biden’s later statements used the word women.)

Substituting people for women might emphasize women’s humanity—as some have argued—but it does so at the cost of obliterating the history and theoretical basis of feminism. Yes, women are people. But they are a particular kind of people, the kind of people who have historically been denied the vote, not allowed to own property, excluded from higher education and professional careers, beaten into submission by their partners, and paid lower wages. These things did not happen by coincidence. They were part of a social order—patriarchy—that controlled and monitored female sexual purity and reproduction. Dismantling that system is not as simple as declaring women to be people too and then retiring in triumph. To combat a problem, you have to be able to name it."

that was a joke, Lucy - responding to:

It would be if that were the case. But it's not.

Because of trans activists insisting that everything must be inclusive of trans people.

What I'm hearing is that the trans activists are twots (as are the anti-trans activists), but I think I respect the motives of many of trans activists more. 

And that we need more sensitivity in rape/sex assault counselling.

small man (mentally), with a teeny tiny dick (or, one that doesn't work / looks bad 
 

im confused that you would conflate this physical aspect with disagreeing that “men are pigs”.

does the shape of a woman’s labia also conform to the opinions she holds?

is this a novel type of phrenology you are trailblazing?

What a glorious example of Jelly showing himself to be a spiteful and nasty misogynist than his OP.

 

I avoided using the loos at a pub once when there was a group of very lairy, drunk abusive trans women who were being incredibly aggressive to anyone who caught their eye. 
 

Those of us who are litigators have no doubt come across a trans master who is very pleasant and a lot less bonkers than most QB masters. 

How many trans people are there in the country? I mean properly trans, not just a man in a dress.

Im guessing not that many, so I’m struggling to understand why so much heat is generated around a tiny tiny number of people, it seems massively disproportionate.

A better question is why the fook are we rearranging the whole of society and redefining half the words in the dictionary for a tiny group of predominantly privileged white males who have never heard the word "no" and are in denial about biology.

Trans means transitioning from one sex to another by having hormone treatment, surgery etc, due to a deep seated feeling that you were born in the wrong body. Just waking up one day and deciding “I’m going to become a woman” is clearly ridiculous and does not make them a woman and is insulting to true trans people.

Trans means transitioning from one sex to another by having hormone treatment, surgery etc, due to a deep seated feeling that you were born in the wrong body. Just waking up one day and deciding “I’m going to become a woman” is clearly ridiculous and does not make them a woman and is insulting to true trans people.

Lol nope.

You're thinking of old school transsexuals, who, by the way, never claimed or expected anyone to believe that humans can change sex, which we can't.

These days a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, the only way to know whether someone is one is to ask them, and a male person in possession of a working penis can identify as a woman, have penis in vagina sex with a female person and call themselves a lesbian.

Meanwhile actual lesbians who find this offensive and objectionable are being branded transphobic for not being inclusive of trans women and trying to "gatekeep" lesbianism, and young lesbians are being told that their sexuality is merely a genital preference and being told to be more open minded about having sex with penis people.

I wish I was joking but unfortunately I am not.

Not sure how many times it needs to be said, but if your objection is to the niche view of the shouty twitterati (on either side), then rest assured, the tolerant middle is for you. I'm closer to proboner on this. 

So, let me get this straight: I could turn up at the gym tomorrow, declare that I identify as a woman, and waltz into the female changing rooms?

And could I then change my mind again the moment I leave? I mean does there have to be any degree of permanence to a change in gender identity?

I’m saying you’re about 100 years behind in what TRAs define as trans.  Which is literally anyone who says they are trans, overnight.  Without exception.

just tbc that’s not my definition or stonewall’s but well done occam

So, let me get this straight: I could turn up at the gym tomorrow, declare that I identify as a woman, and waltz into the female changing rooms?

i mean you could proboner - nobody is stopping you unless the gc crowd institiute genital checks at gyms

 you wouldn’t be a trans person though 

So, let me get this straight: I could turn up at the gym tomorrow, declare that I identify as a woman, and waltz into the female changing rooms?

Correct.

And could I then change my mind again the moment I leave? I mean does there have to be any degree of permanence to a change in gender identity?

Yes, you could, and no, there does not.

 

you wouldn’t be a trans person though 

Why not?

A woman is anyone who says they are one, according to trans activists.

So according to that definition, if he says he is a woman in order to gain access to women's changing rooms, he literally is one.

Who are you to tell him he wouldn't be a trans woman?

If anyone can identify as a woman, surely anyone can identify as a trans woman?

Oh the fact that nine out of ten trans women are now opting to keep their penises should give you some idea about how fluid it is.

Nothing like keeping your options open, eh ladies?

When it comes to sex offenders I would say this:

It is not possible to identify as a woman whilst committing a crime involving your penis.

If you have committed a crime involving your penis and you are now claiming to identify as a woman, you are either lying, or your gender identity is fluid and can be switched on and off. In which case, you can switch the woman part of it off for the duration of your sentence, which you will serve in the men's estate where you belong.

I mean, fooking hell. Why is no one prepared to say no to these scrotes?

just tbc that’s not my definition or stonewall’s but well done occam

It absolutely 100% is Stonewall's position.  Why is why most women had no issues with anything to do with transfolk until the TRAs took control of Stonewall. 

And that's without even touching on the biological impossibility of being "assigned a sex at birth" in 99% of cases.

I don't think a woman can identify as a trans woman, because, ironically, whilst anyone of any sex can be a woman, only a person of the male sex can be a trans woman. They can invade our category but we can't invade theirs.

However, Probober is a male person, which means that if he says he is a woman he is both a woman and a trans woman. The fact that he has said it makes it true.

According to Stonewall and their batshit ideology, if Proboner decided he wanted to use the women's changing rooms for whatever reason and so he said, "I am a woman", he would be no less of a woman, and no less of a trans woman, than any other trans woman.

Tell me again how this isn't a safeguarding issue.

And that's without even touching on the biological impossibility of being "assigned a sex at birth" in 99% of cases.

What do they imagine is assigned at birth?

Literally, what?

Every day is idiot day.

 The idea that “cis” is offensive or misogynistic is another opportunistic intellectual land grab by the well-oiled anti-trans machine and must be resisted by the nile.

Cis means someone whose gender identity and biological sex align. That’s it. 

You might wish that “woman” meant only and exclusively someone who is biologically female and whose gender identity aligns with that. But it doesn’t unambiguously mean that in today’s society. Sorry. Pls deal

“anyone who doesn't believe in gender woo woo”

there is no such thing as “gender woo woo”

if you don’t believe in gender, you’re clinically a moron

I found this definition of gender:

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other.

Seems rather sexist. Do I have to conform to the norms and behaviours of my sex?

Fùck that. 

it doesn’t say your gender identity has to be limited to align with your own sex.

I think it’s a somewhat narrow definition. There are identities that are not closely based in man/woman/boy/girl. You or I or any of the other gammons might think those identities are bollox, but that doesn’t change the fact that they exist, and they’re not in any way harmful. 

Also, I find it a bit weird to try to define gender without reference to the concept of an identity. Gender is socially constructed, sure, or at least partially sure. But Q: what is it? A: It’s an identity.

So no, I don’t agree with it really.

I do not have a gender identity, Laz, for the same reason that I do not believe in a sky pixie.

Gender identity theory is simply the latest cult to capture the imaginations of credulous and gullible people who feel the need to believe that their life has some deeper meaning and that they are more developed than dolphins. 

It has stepped into the void left behind by organised religion, and in today's intellectually bankrupt, porn-addled and social media addicted society, has taken the form of a belief in sexed souls which are apparently so personal to each individual that they cannot be described, and yet so generic that they allow 99% of humanity to be forced into one of two boxes. Its high priests are autogynephiliac males who fetishise womanhood whilst despising actual women.

It is utterly unsurprising that you are falling over yourself to identify as "cis", because you believe this makes you look cool and woke, whilst allowing you to mansplain womanhood and feminism to actual women and feminists, and dismiss them as bigots for refusing to bow to the demands of privileged white males, who are the people you really care about. (These males are recast as the most vulnerable and marginalised demographic in this rewriting of reality and get to play at being oppressed, which is the one thing they have never been in the history of human civilisation and therefore a fun novelty for them.) You get to indulge in some good old-fashioned misogyny whilst pretending to be progressive. And it doesn't require any intellectual rigour whatsoever, just a willingness to repeat meaningless slogans and talk over women, both of which you excel at.

The whole thing is, in short, right up your alley.

You do however now own a nice shiny statuette commemorating your Word Soup of the Week award. Helped, of course, that your main competitor, as always, was Hotblack Desiato ie yourself.

ps I do not identify as “cis”. This basic error means I did not deem it worthwhile subjecting your fourth paragraph to the complex syntactic analysis that might be required to understand it.

A powerful indictment of Laz's faux wokery bollocks there, Anna

Good to have you back, calling out hypocrisy

Yeah disappointing to see that laz has bought into this crap tbh. Still, probably fatal To their cause ;)

"

Reply

Report

So, let me get this straight: I could turn up at the gym tomorrow, declare that I identify as a woman, and waltz into the female changing rooms?

i mean you could proboner - nobody is stopping you unless the gc crowd institiute genital checks at gyms

 you wouldn’t be a trans person though"

poor little Robespierre chill edging ever closer to falling foul of the TRAs he supports 

philip / pippa bunce decides which one to be on a daily basis and identifies as trans 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.fnlondon.com/amp/articles/mistransla…

changing rooms might not be the best example because people get (reasonably publicly) undressed in them, but there is an obvious problem with enforcing eg rules that say you can’t go into a woman’s toilet if you’ve got a cock.

This doesn’t apply to some of the obvious cases for sex-based segregation eg prisons, nor sport at the elite level. It does apply to some situations where there is a need or desire to offer female-only services tho, eg crisis and refuge centres.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious self identification doesn't mean anyone with a penis who says they are a woman IS a woman. Clearly it is possible to lie about how you identify, the same way you can lie about your religion or sexuality or political beliefs or well, pretty much anything else that is intrinsic to you as a person.  Even the most mental TRA activist would surely recognise that. OK perhaps not the MOST mental because some of them are clearly completely insane but it is not a remotely 'mainstream' position that a person with a penis becomes a woman by saying they are one even if they identify as being a man and are simply lying.   The 'mainstream' position (on the trans activist side) is that if a person with a penis genuinely identifies as being female/a woman then they are, in fact, a woman. Part of me instinctively rebels against that and part of me thinks it isn't much more than a question of language. I do understand why more (natal) women have a bigger part of them rebel.  Most of the (natal) women I know feel that way and I am certainly not going to tell them they are wrong to do so. I honestly don't give a fvck if people born with vaginas but who identify as men get put the men category with me, but again I understand that may be a privilege thing. If someone wants to say I am a 'cis' man to distinguish me from those men born with/still having a vagina then again, I don't really care to be honest. 

What a lot of people do seem to be saying is that if someone with a penis says they are a woman we should treat them as such i.e. call them 'she'; let them use the women's loos; let them access services that are exclusively for women, let them compete in sport as a woman etc. My personal view of that is that each has to be judged on a (risk of) harm to others/fairness basis where we try our best to accommodate trans people without materially undermining the protection/opportunities that single sex places and sports etc afford to women generally.

It's all complex and difficult and should be worked out on a case by case in a calm and reasonable way but I also instinctively rebel against the idea that we should require someone to undergo surgery or take hormones to somehow 'prove' how they identify before 'allowing' them to fully express that identification. If a person born a woman genuinely believes she should have been born a man/is a man/whatever the correct way of expressing trans identity is then I don't want to make him cut off his breasts before he can come into the male changing room with me or play in the men's rugby team. 

For what its worth though I think those of you who say trans people are mentally ill are on the wrong side of history to exactly the same extent as those who said gay people were mentally ill and needed just needed to be 'cured'. 

 

"self identification doesn't mean anyone with a penis who says they are a woman IS a woman"

That's exactly what it means tho. "Acceptance without exception" is stonewalls mantra 

"those of you who say trans people are mentally ill are on the wrong side of history"

better tell that to the doctors assessing their patients for gender dysphoria then