[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Nothing - really! What are you arguing about then. Do you or don't you support the self-identification of men as women who are therefore free to use the ladies bathrooms?

What am I arguing about then?

My input to this thread ended two days ago. However, I will reply when I get notifications that my posts are being responded to and people are saying I have said things I never did.

Kindly do one.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

What am I arguing about then?

My input to this thread ended two days ago. However, I will reply when I get notifications that my posts are being responded to and people are saying I have said things I never did.

Kindly do one.

With pleasure!

[Kizzy]

This is beginning to smack of something else to marginalise women, I remember the backlash Germaine Greer got when she refused to acknowledge transfemales as women.

It was revolting and I felt conflicted because I felt exactly the same as her, I fully believe that womanhood is a whole life experience encompassing not just how you act, interact or react but how others do to you and that in many instances is gender specific.. that life experience can't and should't be discounted.

When you M/F transition you are not a woman, when you F/M transition you are not a man, you did not die you were not reborn.

Now not only do we have to fully accept men identifying as women we must accept being relabeled ourselves... No!

[Marsh.]

You're not being being labelled. "Cis" is simply descriptive. Did you reject heterosexual labels?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Withano

Umm. Cause if you use the f word to describe a gay person it would be homophobic and you will be infracted. If you use the n word to describe a black person you will be infracted. That's entirely logical. However calling a transwoman a man is transphobia. Why is tibb tolerating transphobia but not other prejudices. The answer seems to be, because the moderating staff are ok with it and even use it themselves. Several people have brought up this transphobia before, and although I'm relieved that Vicky doesn't see it as transphobia, it just is. That is something she's understands incorrectly.

Vicky is either transphobic or she's not. It's been established already she is not. The penchant to then pull up on her personal wording and to suggest well let's fix this too, shift a word here and there... except this is what freedom of expression comes down to. It's in our words, on our own terms, when discussing our beliefs and how we frame logic in our own minds... it can't be restrictive if it's necessary to talk about certain topics and not impose a sort of cognitive dissonance on ourselves... it's shifting discomfort from one person to another is the way I see it.. is what this feels like in my mind, because let's be honest... she and the mods are being beat like a pinata for candy when they have no control over what others feel or believe. It's not just her mind, it's all our minds. We all have different views on this... and she personally is not trying to win anyone's affection for those beliefs or to change even their minds, that I can see? I even think some people just agree with this on their own terms? But supposedly some sin here is being committed here, although she is not transphobic, that makes her moderating intolerant? I think it's tolerant of her to not target people's thoughts over small things like out-of-context semantics when it comes to wording... something TiBB has never been all that sensitive to anyway when it comes to moderation. In fact the poster is given more benefit of doubt than not I'd say on most forums, and this isn't just related to trans discussions, but a lot of stealth trolling stays up, not just these particular lambs...we are arguing over virtue after this point, whether one action is more virtuous versus another.... but I think that her words and her courage to say what she actually means with conviction and to do this with tolerance of counter-arguments, that as well can be regarded as a virtue... and I don't know what to say to current or future transfolk, except, that this is the real world... one person's transphobia is another person's virtue, when we are being honest with ourselves and others and not mincing our words to suit the agenda of the day... we all think and come to different conclusions about what sex constitutes, the meaning of gender, the meaning of life even and to be fair, just about everything now is a moral contention ... I mean if it's not this, it'll be another. As if we are all virtue signaling and microaggressing the **** out of society.. and I do mean this, the oversensitive penchants do absolutely go both directions.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're not being being labelled. "Cis" is simply descriptive. Did you reject heterosexual labels?

What are those, Mr & Mrs?

No, because they don't define me do they?

[Maru]

And also, I'm sorry completely to complicate our lives further and about to make this day so much harder... but I have heard cis used also a pejorative... ..

...

*walks away sadly*

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Maru

Vicky is either transphobic or she's not. It's been established already she is not. The penchant to then pull up on her personal wording and to suggest well let's fix this too, shift a word here and there... except this is what freedom of expression comes down to. It's in our words, on our own terms, when discussing our beliefs and how we frame logic in our own minds... it can't be restrictive if it's necessary to talk about certain topics and not impose a sort of cognitive dissonance on ourselves... it's shifting discomfort from one person to another is the way I see it.. is what this feels like in my mind, because let's be honest... she and the mods are being beat like a pinata for candy when they have no control over what others feel or believe. It's not just her mind, it's all our minds. We all have different views on this... and she personally is not trying to win anyone's affection for those beliefs or to change even their minds, that I can see? I even think some people just agree with this on their own terms? But supposedly some sin here is being committed here, although she is not transphobic, that makes her moderating intolerant? I think it's tolerant of her to not target people's thoughts over small things like out-of-context semantics when it comes to wording... something TiBB has never been all that sensitive to anyway when it comes to moderation. In fact the poster is given more benefit of doubt than not I'd say on most forums, and this isn't just related to trans discussions, but a lot of stealth trolling stays up, not just these particular lambs...we are arguing over virtue after this point, whether one action is more virtuous versus another.... but I think that her words and her courage to say what she actually means with conviction and to do this with tolerance of counter-arguments, that as well can be regarded as a virtue... and I don't know what to say to current or future transfolk, except, that this is the real world... one person's transphobia is another person's virtue, when we are being honest with ourselves and others and not mincing our words to suit the agenda of the day... we all think and come to different conclusions about what sex constitutes, the meaning of gender, the meaning of life even and to be fair, just about everything now is a moral contention ... I mean if it's not this, it'll be another. As if we are all virtue signaling and microaggressing the **** out of society.. and I do mean this, the oversensitive penchants do absolutely go both directions.

Excellent post!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What are those, Mr & Mrs?

No, because they don't define me do they?

Since when do Mr and Mrs denote heterosexuality?

I'm talking about "straight" or "heterosexual" being used as descriptors when discussing sexuality.

But "cis" is suddenly a label being forced on you when discussing trans.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Since when do Mr and Mrs denote heterosexuality?

I'm talking about "straight" or "heterosexual" being used as descriptors when discussing sexuality.

But "cis" is suddenly a label being forced on you when discussing trans.

It is yes, I had never heard of this until this discussion.

This gets more confusing by the day, in the other thread Shaun used that term as a descriptor too but in the context of 2 women in a bar, one 'transwoman' and one 'ciswoman'

My sexuality doesn't define me either.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is yes, I had never heard of this until this discussion.

This gets more confusing by the day, in the other thread Shaun used that term as a descriptor too but in the context of 2 women in a bar, one 'transwoman' and one 'ciswoman'

My sexuality doesn't define me either.

One thing at least we are very much agreed on!

I will never accept the label of 'cis' and I know many feel the same.

[Beso]

So do people suffer from phantom cock syndrom or not?

[Vicky.]

Stepping back from this topic now as tbh, it seems I cannot win no matter what (what a surprise ) but I will say, I will not be effectively bullied into saying a male person is actually female.

Of course it would be different if I had just randomly said 'Lauren harries is a man' for no reason at all but when its actually relevant to the conversation? I will acknowledge that her sex is male. Its not her sex WAS male, her sex still is male. She is a male person who had cosmetic surgery to look more like a woman, to alleviate the dysphoria she felt over her sexed body. I would have no issue using she and her about Harries, and I would not randomly say if she was infront of me 'you are a man' nor would I randomly say on a topic about her, without an actual reason/relevance 'she is male'. But Lauren knows she is male, why is it so horrendous for me to know this too?

Lauren was brought up in what I feel was meant to be a 'haha, got ya' type way, and I was blunt in my beliefs. I do not believe male people can be lesbians. I am positive that my view is not some kind of minority fringe view like people try to make out.

Either way, I do try to be understanding and actually take on board other peoples views. But I will be honest and say that I have a very had time trying to understand viewpoints such as 'people can actually change sex' and 'male people can actually be female' and 'transactivisim is not misogynistic and homophobic' and such. Oh, along with the need some have to bring up lesbians whenever discussing male people in female areas. I find that pretty crappy tbh. Thats not something only found on here, its extremely common in discussions about this elsewhere...like 'you are not happy with male people in female prisons? That must mean you are not happy with lesbians being in female prisons, should they be in with the men?' which basically to me reads as saying lesbians are men, or like men in some way.

And I do not think that acknowledging biological sex is transphobic either. If this is peoples bar for what constitutes transphobia and what does not, they will always be sorely disappointing with moderating. The trans topic is unlike anything we have ever seen before, as effectively everyone is expected to forget everything they know, and suspend reality in a way as to pretend that male and female are not actual real things. We cannot be deleting people/banning people for posting about biology/reality as we currently know it. If this means that we are seen as transphobic ourselves, so be it.


So yeah, this was meant to be just a line or two saying I was stepping back now, but I rambled on a bit more. I won't be replying anymore to this thread now...so do your worst I also won't be pretending that I do not acknowledge biology so that people feel better about the way I express my viewpoints. Sorry.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Maru

And also, I'm sorry completely to complicate our lives further and about to make this day so much harder... but I have heard cis used also a pejorative... ..

...

*walks away sadly*

So does 'gay' but it's still accurate as a descriptor tbf. 'Cis scum' is something that gets used as an insult, but then so does something like 'white trash', but the person being described is still white. And it doesn't mean the word 'white' itself is an insult.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is yes, I had never heard of this until this discussion.

This gets more confusing by the day, in the other thread Shaun used that term as a descriptor too but in the context of 2 women in a bar, one 'transwoman' and one 'ciswoman'

My sexuality doesn't define me either.

Cis just means that you don't consider your gender to be different to your birth sex. So cis woman would mean you were born a woman and consider yourself to be a woman, is that not an accurate description? In what way does that redefine you?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Cis just means that you don't consider your gender to be different to your birth sex. So cis woman would mean you were born a woman and consider yourself to be a woman, is that not an accurate description? In what way does that redefine you?

The term woman means I consider myself to be a woman and or was born a woman.

Transwoman is the term for someone who transitioned into a female I believe.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

So does 'gay' but it's still accurate as a descriptor tbf. 'Cis scum' is something that gets used as an insult, but then so does something like 'white trash', but the person being described is still white. And it doesn't mean the word 'white' itself is an insult.



Cis just means that you don't consider your gender to be different to your birth sex. So cis woman would mean you were born a woman and consider yourself to be a woman, is that not an accurate description? In what way does that redefine you?

Does this mean we have cis men as well?
All these labels just make things more confusing.
Surely woman is enough to define a woman, the same as man is to define a man.
Trans should mean just that, someone who has transitioned, therefore can be classed as who they have transitioned to. There should be no shame or embarrassment about this.
As to all this men with a penis calling lesbians who refuse to sleep with them transphobic..well, wake up call, they just don’t fancy you, get over yourself.

[Kizzy]

'Cis scum' is something that gets used as an insult,'

Well there you are, it's already being used to slur people for no apparent reason other than that is how they were born? is that not 'phobic'...'cisphobic'? Is that a thing?

As I said it's another way to sideline, marginalise and make women appear less than.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is yes, I had never heard of this until this discussion.

This gets more confusing by the day, in the other thread Shaun used that term as a descriptor too but in the context of 2 women in a bar, one 'transwoman' and one 'ciswoman'

My sexuality doesn't define me either.

Nobody said either defines you.

My question was why you don't mind sexuality descriptors during a sexuality discussion but take issue with a trans identifier or non identifier during such discussion.

Neither defines you but are simple terms used during a discussion of either.

[bots]

it's interesting to me that the people shouting transphobia are the same ones that insist on calling people cis when the have been repeatedly told that others are offended when being addressed with that term

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The term woman means I consider myself to be a woman and or was born a woman.

Transwoman is the term for someone who transitioned into a female I believe.

'Woman' is gender specific though, whereas 'cis' isn't. Just as 'trans' on it's own isn't. And for trans to exist as a word that describes a state of being, there has to be an opposite to that in language, somebody who isn't trans. And that's all that 'cis' does. If you were to describe someone as not being transsexual, for example as a way of highlighting a trans issue that might effect people who aren't transsexual, then you might need to describe that the person you are talking about is not transsexual. That's literally all that cis exists for. I think Shaun said in an earlier post that by having a word like that instead of just saying woman/transwoman or man/transman, is that it reduces the likelihood of people saying things like 'normal' woman differentiate, because there's a word for it. And if we're just talking about people, then it would be people/transpeople, removing transpeople from the category of 'people'. Instead we can say 'cis people'.

Originally Posted by smudgie

Does this mean we have cis men as well?
All these labels just make things more confusing.
Surely woman is enough to define a woman, the same as man is to define a man.
Trans should mean just that, someone who has transitioned, therefore can be classed as who they have transitioned to. There should be no shame or embarrassment about this.
As to all this men with a penis calling lesbians who refuse to sleep with them transphobic..well, wake up call, they just don’t fancy you, get over yourself.

Yes, cis is completely gender neutral, it only means that a person isn't trans, regardless of birth sex/how they view themselves etc etc

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'Cis scum' is something that gets used as an insult,'

Well there you are, it's already being used to slur people for no apparent reason other than that is how they were born? is that not 'phobic'...'cisphobic'? Is that a thing?

As I said it's another way to sideline, marginalise and make women appear less than.

Yes it would be an insult, I suppose that could be considered cis phobic. Just like calling someone white trash could be considered racist. But the white person is still white, it doesn't stop the descriptor from being accurate.
And 'cis scum' wouldn't marginalise women as it doesnt mention women, like I said it's not gender specific.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'Cis scum' is something that gets used as an insult,'

Well there you are, it's already being used to slur people for no apparent reason other than that is how they were born? is that not 'phobic'...'cisphobic'? Is that a thing?

As I said it's another way to sideline, marginalise and make women appear less than.

Anything can be used as an insult.

The accent you speak with, the town you're from, your sexuality, your gender, your hair colour, your job, your clothes, your nationality, your skin colour etc etc.

Does that make any of those individual things insults themselves? No not at all.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it's interesting to me that the people shouting transphobia are the same ones that insist on calling people cis when the have been repeatedly told that others are offended when being addressed with that term

It is indeed. It seems only certain groups have the right to be offended and the rest are just expected to put up with it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Nobody said either defines you.

My question was why you don't mind sexuality descriptors during a sexuality discussion but take issue with a trans identifier or non identifier during such discussion.

Neither defines you but are simple terms used during a discussion of either.

Have I not explained this? I see 'ciswoman' as another way to marginalise women.. I don't subscribe to the term or agree with it's use in any context.

Is that clear, if you think that's wrong let it be known I don't care.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have I not explained this? I see 'ciswoman' as another way to marginalise women.. I don't subscribe to the term or agree with it's use in any context.

Is that clear, if you think that's wrong let it be known I don't care.

There you go misunderstanding yet again. Cis doesn't refer to women. Cis is the name for anyone who is not trans, man or woman. It doesn't marginalise them anymore than "heterosexual" does.

So? Is whether Kizzy cares or not a barometer for whether we can post or not? It's not your thread.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Anything can be used as an insult.

The accent you speak with, the town you're from, your sexuality, your gender, your hair colour, your job, your clothes, your nationality, your skin colour etc etc.

Does that make any of those individual things insults themselves? No not at all.

If that has been specifically engineered to be used as a derogatory term as this to me has then I have every right to reject it, and I do.

If it wasn't and it's been hijacked by prejudiced people as other terms have been throughout the ages then why is it not seen as acceptable to drop the term?... Have women to be complicit in their own degradation?

I don't think so.