Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10085273)

Not quite, but I'd have to ask Kellie.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085272)

Wrong, but that is helpful, I was wondering why we were going around in circles.

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 10085282)

Has Kellie had a full transition? change of genitalia is what I mean and what ever hormone things they take?

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10085291)

Explain?

Explain?

Makes no difference, you can't change your biological sex, even if your penis is inverted.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085299)

Biological sex isn’t at all relevant to a transpersons gender or current sex, so it is a beyond-stupid way to determine a label for somebody. Fortunately I don’t know anybody who does this apart from you lol.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10085305)

Their current sex is their birth sex. And it is relevant in a medical sense - a transwoman will still have her prostate checked, and be recommended to check her nuts if they're still there. But in a social sense, it shouldn't be relevant.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085314)

So you want to refer to Kellie as a male because she gets her prostate checked during medical exams. Ok Oliver.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10085326)

She is biologically, yes. But she's a transwoman, so she'll get her breasts checked too.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085299)

Biological sex isn’t at all relevant to a transpersons gender or current sex, so it is a beyond-stupid way to determine a label for somebody. Fortunately I don’t know anybody who does this apart from you lol.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085332)

Yes, I understand your incoherent thought process somehow, i dont care for it, it will never be helpful in these discussions

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10085338)

And what is your "thought" process?

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085357)

...I’ve been pretty vocal in this thread, you can read through it.

I don't think our discussion can go much further though, I understand why you wouldnt need to use the word ‘cis’ with a thought process like yours..

it’s not really relevant to any real life situation though, and I dont really fancy discussing a hypothetical scenario based on the idea that other people use pronouns the way that you do, because they do not.

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 10085875)

Pot, kettle.

Patronising mysogyny that love when used to put a woman in her place. You aren't doing much in support of transgender people while practising casual sexism. You must be so proud.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 10085884)

.

The gist I am getting is we are happy to be called cis men ergo everyone else must follow our lead...I am not a sheep and neither are most people on this thread

oh and by the way you can just call yourself a woman but expect to be abused for it, but just suck that one up love

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085900)

I mean. Even if I didn't want to be called cismale, I would still be a cismale because I don't get to dictate the definitions of words.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 10085903)

but its only a definition recently introduced by a minority group and therefore is meaningless in terms of its general applicability.

Let's take the whole thing to its logical conclusion. If the majority of men/women have to start puting cis before everthing then those transitioned will still not be able to assign that label to themselves and so will be seen as an excluded group again ... it just makes zero logical sense

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10086001)

And just to add once again, the only time I've seen the word "cis" used besides on discussions here has been in a negative way which is why so many women (because it's pretty much always transgender women using it to insult women) are against it being used to describe them. The lack of understanding from where women are coming from here is a bit disappointing tbqh.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10086001)

And just to add once again, the only time I've seen the word "cis" used besides on discussions here has been in a negative way which is why so many women (because it's pretty much always transgender women using it to insult women) are against it being used to describe them. The lack of understanding from where women are coming from here is a bit disappointing tbqh.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 10085884)

.

The gist I am getting is we are happy to be called cis men ergo everyone else must follow our lead...I am not a sheep and neither are most people on this thread

oh and by the way you can just call yourself a woman but expect to be abused for it, but just suck that one up love

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085900)

I mean. Even if I didn't want to be called cismale, I would still be a cismale because I don't get to dictate the definitions of words.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 10085218)

No, because she is a woman and a transwoman
And you are a woman and a ciswoman

Kellys transfriend Jane may identify as woman, but if I wanted to talk about Kelly and Jane and not you, I would have to use the word trans, and if I wanted to talk about you and not Jane or Kelly, I would have to use the word cis. (Regarding its a discussion directly relating to genders as a group).

Its just a helpful little prefix that separates you from Jane should we need to use it.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 10086180)

Typical - Transwomen don't want to be called by a certain name ie man but they are quite happy to force a certain name ie cis onto women. Biggest load of hypocrites that every walked this earth.

You are no better by calling women on here cis women when they have made it perfectly clear they reject that name. It isn't a real name and neither you or anyone else can force it on another person who rejects it unless you are just as big a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 10086030)

in fact, i would argue that forcing a majority to indicate clearly they are of a particular type increases the discriminatory affect on the minority group, rather than normalising things

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 10086216)

You are a very smart guy Bots.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 10086231)

can you imagine the uproar, if people were required to say things like .... not jewish, not muslim etc etc etc .... which is exactly what this cis thing is doing

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 10085903)

but its only a definition recently introduced by a minority group and therefore is meaningless in terms of its general applicability.

Let's take the whole thing to its logical conclusion. If the majority of men/women have to start puting cis before everthing then those transitioned will still not be able to assign that label to themselves and so will be seen as an excluded group again ... it just makes zero logical sense