You were the one who reduced it to "liking shoes" I actually didn't list any kind of stereotypes

That does answer my question. That does contradict your article by quite a hefty margin though.

Perhaps. I'd argue your reasoning is irrelevant, but she may have a more male brain. I dont know much about her tbh.

It might help if you identify what these gender specific 'features' are...

You don't need to list them. I used an example of a stereotype.

Shoes is a feminine stereotype, yes?

Therefore a perfectly valid example.

You do seem determined to tell me I disagree with that article :laugh: I don't but thanks

My reasoning is irrelevant.... What are you basing your reasoning on then?

Have you considered something I haven't, what is it?

I'm saying I find it offensive, you can identify with it as much as you like.

..yeah it is complex, Jamie...it’s funny..(..non related but kind of..)...over years, ive has many chats with friends on ‘would you ever consider cosmetic surgery in the future’....and I’ve often said...goddamn YES, absolutely..:laugh:..but having gone through many surgeries in my life, I would never consider any surgery that wasn’t essential...if there was an alternative ‘method’, I mean...and self identification would be something that would give this../..this ‘non surgical’ procedure that would surely be progress...with the dangers and risks of any surgery...the stress on the body and recovery time etc...it shouldn’t be something that would be the only way to bring ‘recognition’...and obviously the cost as well, it feeling more available as a choice to people with higher incomes who could ‘afford’....I think for some it has been available on NHS...but then, that topic is quite controversial as well...so yeah, very complex...but there are reasons why I’m in agreement with self-identification...but I’ve also taken on board very much, so many things that Vicky has said of ‘being open to abuse’...

Anne's struggles to see issues in career progression stem from being in a big job on telly earning thousands and not having to really worry about fighting her way through a male dominated field.

That literally comes from her lucky and comfortable position. Not a possible male brain. Although I suppose she could have one.

The surgery isn't a cure, but the way in which it acts as a treatment is that it helps alleviate the trans persons dysphoria. It leads to them generally being more accepted as the opposite sex and helps them view themselves as that sex. But yes it shouldn't be viewed by anyone as a cure (and I think trans people are aware of this from the many consultations they have prior to surgery). I think it's more seen as a cure by non-trans people, as a lot of people will only accept someone as trans if they've had surgery.


On the 'cis' thing, I really do struggle to understand why it's seen as offensive tbh Jaxie. You say that trans women aren't the same as women, but that's actually what the word 'cis' represents. If that word (or any similar wording that means the same thing) wasn't used, there would be no differentiation between you and a transsexual woman. Yes we could say 'woman' and 'trans woman', but then a lot of people do view trans women as women so at times of the word 'woman' being used it might be confusing as to who is being referred to. So it only exists as a word to enable the conversations to take place in a coherent way which surely is needed in such complex topics as this. It's not placing any kind of label onto you, and is no different to what people mean when they say things like 'real women'.
I've tried to limit using 'cis' during conversations like this, actually since the last time the two of us discussed the word coincidentally :laugh: because I'm aware from that how some people take it and I haven't wanted the conversation to be distracted with a discussion about semantics, so I've used phrasing like 'biological woman', 'non-trans woman' etc etc, and I've never been pulled up on that being offensive, it's just meant that people have known who I'm referring to, making the differentiation, and that's exactly the same as what the word 'cis' does. It really isn't meant as a label in any way.


edited to add: if we were to just use woman and transwoman, it denies anyone the opinion that transwomen are also women. Whether or not you agree that they are, surely people are entitled to that opinion? So as long as that opinion does exist there has to be a way of easily differentiating between the two, and that's all the word 'cis' is meant for. A conversational aid, nothing more.

Currently, surgery is not a requirement for a GRC.

It would be barbaric if we made a law that said that someone had to have surgery.

You only have to be diagnosed with sex dysphoria, and to have 'lived as' the opposite sex for 2 years. The second part I reckon could be removed tbh, as 'lived as' does come down to stereotypes. You also need top pay a small fee, but this is waived if you are low income.

This is why I disagree with self-ID. I don't see whats wrong with having to have a diagnosis to say that yes, you do have dysphoria rather than it being a whim. And transactivists think this is a bad thing, really? I think it is necessary 'gatekeeping' to keep women as safe as possible, whilst also allowing transsexual people a bit more peace of mind. Make the GRC a 'anyone can get one' type deal, and it will be seen as a total joke.

But don't you think we could have had a better discussion if you'd have just raised your point without trying to mock mine?

Mock? I made my point using a pretty mild joke. I didn't mock you at all. :/

Women and trans women are not the same, can never be the same thing. In your head you are adding on words to define the difference. All you need to define the difference is the word trans.

In fact in your dogged support of trans women by insisting they are the same and applying extra words to define a woman you are being incredibly sexist towards women.

Sex refers to a persons genitalia, sexism refers to a prejudice of a person with a certain set of genitalia. A transexual woman has the same genitalia as you, you share the same sex. You refusing to refer to them as the same sex is closer to sexism by the definition of the word. Transphobic would be a better adjective, but still if youre gonna label anybody as sexist, its not gonna be the ones labeling people in-line with their sex is it. You'll need a new label to describe that kind of 'prejudice', mrs dont label me.

Yes the word trans does define the difference, but only when referring to the trans person. When talking about a non trans person the word trans isn't applicable, so we could say 'non-trans person' instead (like I just did). Let's say we aren't talking about specific gender, how else other than saying 'non-trans person' would we go about that? And all the word cis means is 'non-trans'. And in that first sentence, is my use of 'non trans person' offensive?

I'm sorry you see that as a sexist way of thinking, but it isn't, I'm purely talking about making a conversation easy to understand, and that the word isn't used to add a label, but to describe who is being referred to, and I don't think I can demonstrate that any more clearly than that ^, so we may just have to agree to disagree, but I'm absolutely not being sexist towards women in any way.

That hasn't always been so has it, how old is Anne, she hasn't always been a shalebrity has she?

So there is is a male brain and a female brain, that's nice and boxy isn't it?

What about a female autistic brain, I wonder what they're like? Do you think there might be a nice science shaped box for those too?

Sex refers to sexual organs, the anatomy of a persons reproductive system and a lifetime of experience. A transexual woman is not the same as me. You can phobic me as much as you like it is just words and doesn't make it a fact. You are displaying a prejudice against women.

As a man reading this thread I can make the following observations.

1. Men are trying to tell women how they should feel, what they should accept, how they should be referred to

2. The woman's position is being actively undermined

This doesn't seem particularly progressive to me.

Boxy?

No. Scientific fact that there are masculine and feminine parts of the brain of which everyone is somewhere on the scale, making them more or less feminine/masculine in emotions and behaviour. Also affected by the chemistry in their body estrogen/ testosterone etc.

No. Anne hasn't always been a celebrity but clearly hasn't experienced career progression difficulty which either means she never attempted a career of sorts prior to being cast on the Chase to start one in television (I think she was a professional quiz champion or whatever they're called) or she did very well progressing up the ladder with no difficulty, which is no excuse for not looking beyond her own front yard.

Her celebrity status is a hard one to label as successful career progression because it's not really typical. It can literally happen overnight, especially these days. It's rare anyone really works their way for years into the business anymore.

No they're not the same. Hence the words cis/trans to differentiate.

The same as man/woman differentiates between two humans with distinct differences.

Except women can also transition to become men.

The cis/trans discussion isn't a female oriented topic. It's a human one so your observation is flawed.

If we were discussing a female based topic like abortion or something I'd see your point. As it is you're telling men they have no say in a discussion that is about them just as much as it's about women. It's about everyone.

Thanks so much for seeing it exactly as it is! :wavey:
Roast chicken for dinner.

I'll just add to this that I have exactly the same views when it comes to trans men and non trans men. So if those views make me sexist then I guess I'm sexist towards both men and women... which I don't think is possible but whatever.

This also applies to this...

The conversation is mainly about transwomen because the subject of Anne's comments, what the thread is about, is a trans woman. And generally they are more about transwomen because womens rights are seen as being more at threat. But I should be just as free to give my opinion on trans issues as anyone else, even if it is a trans woman that's being discussed. Trans issues aren't something that should be exclusively discussed by women.

I understand that, however there is no absolutes in brain brain type, you may have a man whos brain chemistry could be described as female, this is not definitive proof that he is trans is it?

Can intellect be measured as career progression? That most certainly isn't something that happens overnight.


For clarity on this issue, for my own peace of mind.
Let me get this right if I see M/F trans as female but not a woman or F/M trans as a male but not a man I'm transphobic?


I'll have to live with that then.

Well I wouldn't say it makes you transphobic but it does make you literally incorrect in terms of the actual terminology.

Male and Female are biological descriptions of sex. Man and Woman are social constructions of gender.

A Trans-woman can be sociologically a woman (arguably, I'm not saying everyone agrees with this), and not a man, but will always be biologically male.

You have it the wrong way round. And that's not opinion or "Mansplaining" - that is the actual terminology of established gender theory going back several decades.

I haven't accused you of mansplaining no need to be so defensive, They are biological descriptions of gender, genetics are descriptions of sex.
A theory is just that... Theoretical, subject to change.
Simone De Beauvior stated 'One is not born, one is made a woman'.
It pays not to take that too literally :)

I don't believe that transfemales can be sociologically a woman as to my mind a whole life experience not in how you relate to the world and those in it but how the world and those in it relate to you.

Cis sounds like something from Starwars.I aint no Cis Lord.
It’s a ridiculous word.There is no need or reason for me to ‘identify’ as cis or any other made up bollox.
Human man will do fine.

You don't need to "identify" as cis.

It's just a descriptive word when discussing transsexuals to differentiate. Let's not make it into some diagnosis people are having thrust upon them. It's merely language.

It's not an identity. I'm amazed that people are so strung up on this word that means nothing other than 'non-trans' :laugh: And it's ironic that it's only purpose is to make conversation about trans topics easier, yet here we are.

It's like referring to yourself as a 'heterosexual man' to differentiate during a topic about homosexuality. It's meaning is literally no different to that. You don't need to 'identify' as heterosexual you just are. It's a description. This is currently a debate about nothing other than semantics.

(never mind, Marsh got there first :laugh: )

It always seems to me there are more complaints about the complaints about transphobia, than there are complaints about transphobia... hence this thread :unsure:

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

I guess because people usually would fall into the habit of saying "normal" instead of cis, when referring to anyone who isn't transgender, thus rendering the alternative (trans) as 'abnormal'.

that makes sense I guess

Part of the problem on this forum at the moment is there are two distinct types of posters.
These transgender views and topics are a fairly recent issue, one of which some of the older members of the forum are not familiar with, new terminology, cis etc. Younger posters are more used to an all accepting (or more accepting) population. We all need to be more understanding and informed about issues. The problems that a lot of people have is the manner in which more informed members of this forum try to educate. I have many times typed out a question and then not posted because I cant be arsed with the "duh...[insert patronising insulting reply]" from a section of this forum

Like on this page, cherie posted a question, Shaun answered and Marsh answered. Both basically with the same information but one to the point end of the other with barbed patronising language. And you wonder why people bite?

You could say the same about the word "heterosexual" or "straight" though, I guess... But people seem to be OK with those descriptions at this point.

To be fair for my own part... I do think there needs to be a word, but I also think "cis" is a phonetically daft word with a flimsy etymology and I wish it was a different word... ... ... But, its here now so its probably going to stick.

It doesnt describe everybody though? Caitlin Jenner and Kendall Jenner walk in to a bar, the woman orders a drink.

The descriptor 'woman' is not helpful in that sentence. Whereas the descriptors 'transwoman' or 'ciswoman' would have been.

The place is going to go in to a meltdown when the bigender woman enters the bar.

You sort of dont get to choose if you are or not. Its just a word which does describe some people.

That's a very good post and I agree with some of it. But I will disagree that some of us 'need educating'. As women we've spent a lifetime fighting for just the right to be treated as an equal and it still isn't happening, you've seen the recent news on gender pay issues to name but one. Now along comes another group telling we aren't even women anymore. No. This isn't even an issue about transgender or transsexual people. I don't have any problem with how someone wants/needs to live their life. I have a problem with someone trying to redefine my identity and trying to 'include' someone at my expense.