[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well, since when does someone knowing your sexuality mean they suddenly know how you like it in bed?

have you ever been introduced as Marshall the heterosexual?

id say never?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

have you ever been introduced as Marshall the heterosexual?

id say never?

No. But then nobody gets introduced as "Ciswoman/man". So what exactly is your point?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

have you ever been introduced as Marshall the heterosexual?

id say never?

I missed it earlier
...so, what, Marsh is a man?
my head is going to explode

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well plenty people prefer not to talk about what type of sex they like


i would be like if someone introduced themselves in such a rude manner

I agree. That's the whole point. Such terms are not used in everyday life, but only in discussions about sexuality. I'd imagine the term cis would also be only used in specific cases.

[AnnieK]

I personally don't have an issue with the term "cis" to describe me. I can't think of an instance in my day to day life where I would ever use or where it would be used in my direction but if it was I wouldn't take offense. If it was thrown at me as an insult "cis scum" I would take offense but probably no more than if any insult is thrown at me.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I personally don't have an issue with the term "cis" to describe me. I can't think of an instance in my day to day life where I would ever use or where it would be used in my direction but if it was I wouldn't take offense. If it was thrown at me as an insult "cis scum" I would take offense but probably no more than if any insult is thrown at me.

I would hope noone would be rude enough to use that abhorrent term

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I would hope noone would be rude enough to use that abhorrent term

Indeed.......

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I personally don't have an issue with the term "cis" to describe me. I can't think of an instance in my day to day life where I would ever use or where it would be used in my direction but if it was I wouldn't take offense. If it was thrown at me as an insult "cis scum" I would take offense but probably no more than if any insult is thrown at me.

Well exactly. Anything can be used as an insult if you stick a derogatory word after it.

The fuss being made about it is what's marginalising people, not the words themselves.

But, I imagine offence is automatically taken by a lot of people in regards to this topic, so they will automatically find offence by anything to do with it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I personally don't have an issue with the term "cis" to describe me. I can't think of an instance in my day to day life where I would ever use or where it would be used in my direction but if it was I wouldn't take offense. If it was thrown at me as an insult "cis scum" I would take offense but probably no more than if any insult is thrown at me.

Yeah I think that's why I don't like the term because anytime I've seen it (other than when we've talked in this forum) it's been used in an insulting and derogatory manner and also everytime I've seen it used in this way it's been used towards women which is why it' seems to me ore of womens issue rather than mens

[Twosugars]

Went to a Germaine Greer lecture years ago. She was promoting her book "about a boy", it was about art celebrating the beauty of young male body.
Her point was that women should reclaim the appreciation of fit males from gay men.
She also touched on trans issues, needless to say, she was very critical.
Had a word with her afterwards, her hostility or maybe suspicion of gays and trans was clear.
It is what it is. I can understand why women can feel suspicious and uneasy. After all, men have dominated their gender for, like, ever and things like drag queens, trans etc can be seen as invading their only safe space, their womanhood. And it doesn't matter that some of us may think trans progress is not a threat to womanhood.
If women, some or majority, feel this way, it has to be accepted and addressed. The bottome line is we can't have sexual progress at the real or perceived expense of women.
Both genders, but women in particular, need to be okay with whatever is done is that area. Imho.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Went to a Germaine Greer lecture years ago. She was promoting her book "about a boy", it was about art celebrating the beauty of young male body.
Her point was that women should reclaim the appreciation of fit males from gay men.
She also touched on trans issues, needless to say, she was very critical.
Had a word with her afterwards, her hostility or maybe suspicion of gays and trans was clear.
It is what it is. I can understand why women can feel suspicious and uneasy. After all, men have dominated their gender for, like, ever and things like drag queens, trans etc can be seen as invading their only safe space, their womanhood. And it doesn't matter that some of us may think trans progress is not a threat to womanhood.
If women, some or majority, feel this way, it has to be accepted and addressed. The bottome line is we can't have sexual progress at the real or perceived expense of women.
Both genders, but women in particular, need to be okay with whatever is done is that area. Imho.

There also can't be progress with women stubbornly refusing progress despite even the times they don't understand it or refuse to understand it, and shouting down any male who dares to speak.

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Her point was that women should reclaim the appreciation of fit males from gay men.

She always was an irrational person.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

There also can't be progress with women stubbornly refusing progress despite even the times they don't understand it or refuse to understand it, and shouting down any male who dares to speak.

Still, a common ground has to be found.
I would change the term cis if it's not accepted. And forget about self-identification and only take into account gender-reassigment surgery.

She always was an irrational person.

lol, she is "hardline", no question.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Still, a common ground has to be found.
I would change the term cis if it's not accepted. And forget about self-identification and only take into account gender-reassigment surgery.

I don't think changing the word would help. People are taking issue with having any word full stop. For reasons that still haven't been explained.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't think changing the word would help. People are taking issue with having any word full stop. For reasons that still haven't been explained.

I did explain the reason i personally didn't like it.

[Vicky.]

I know I said I would not post in here again, but I came across this article that I think fits really well here, especially with how the conversation has progressed.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/misogyny_hate_silencing/

Especially

There is clear evidence that women who ask questions or voice their concerns are being specifically targeted to silence them. Their motives and views are unfairly denounced as transphobic and inspired by hate. This impacts these women directly but also induces a climate of fear and shame to prevent other women speaking or learning more about the issues that impact them also. It also means the few women’s voices that do get heard are dismissed or mistrusted. The demonisation and marginalisation of a group’s role in society is a well known tactic. It is exploited by oppressors and should not be tolerated in a democratic society where the principle of free speech is upheld and valued. A few well known examples include Hitler’s demonisation of the Jews, the racist denigration of immigrants, Liverpool fans at Hillsborough.

No platforming of women from speaking at university events is common-place ranging from well known radical feminists such as Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer to the Women’s hour presenter Jeni Murray. This is now being extended to grass-root women’s campaign groups and many other ordinary women who wish to speak about the impact of transgender laws on women. This is happening both in the UK and globally.

And for my point earlier, about supposed 'male lesbians'

7.3 Lesbian women are being silenced and sexuality is being redefined

Lesbian women are a particularly vulnerable group since they are targets of both homophobic and misogynistic hate crime. The concept that gender identity trumps biological sex as a marker of whether someone is man / male or woman / female redefines our existing concepts of two protected characteristics in the Equality Act; namely sex and sexual orientation. If a heterosexual male (sexually attracted to females) identifies as a women (sexually attracted to females) their sexual orientation is redefined as now being homosexual. As such we now have male-born lesbians with penis and testicles present in the dating pool for lesbian women. Lesbian women who state a preference for female-born lesbians are condemned as transphobic for doing so. Transgender theory challenges the whole concept of same-sex attraction and is considered by some as homophobic. Indeed, there are some countries (Iran) where homosexuality is punishable by death yet have a policy of state-sponsored transitioning to the opposite gender. This effectively converts a gay person’s orientation to heterosexual and is clearly used there as an method of gay conversion. This highlights the inherent conflict between the theoretical underpinning of gender identity (based on gender) and sexuality (based on sex).

This example shows the banning of a lesbian women who is describing her sexuality as only attracted to other natal females. She was removed for transphobia and trans-misogyny. This is commonly referred to as the ‘cotton ceiling’ (the cotton referring to the cotton of a lesbian women’s underwear through which male-born lesbian may expect access). Many more examples of lesbian women being denounced for their sexual preference can be found here.

NOW I will no longer post in here. But there is a very real problem right now, and burying heads in the sand about it, or even actively joining in with the silencing of women, is anything but progressive. Its regressive.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I know I said I would not post in here again, but I came across this article that I think fits really well here, especially with how the conversation has progressed.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/misogyny_hate_silencing/

Especially





And for my point earlier, about supposed 'male lesbians'



NOW I will no longer post. But there is a very real problem right now, and burying heads in the sand about it, or even actively joining in with the silencing of women, is anything but progressive. Its regressive.

There are a lot who support you on this Vicki. Don't let them drive you away from SD!

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I know I said I would not post in here again, but I came across this article that I think fits really well here, especially with how the conversation has progressed.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/misogyny_hate_silencing/

Especially





And for my point earlier, about supposed 'male lesbians'



NOW I will no longer post in here. But there is a very real problem right now, and burying heads in the sand about it, or even actively joining in with the silencing of women, is anything but progressive. Its regressive.

That is beyond bad, I had no idea as I don't follow the topic properly.

Don't leave the convo, Vicky.

[Marsh.]

Who's driving Vicky away from anywhere?

[bots]

i will explain clearly why i think the cis description is entirely unnecessary. It is only in existence because the trans community want to be classified without distinction as being men or women. So they want unequivocal inclusion in those categories. The reality is that there is a distinction, so they have created the term cis and put everyone else in that bucket. So, in effect, they have removed the simple status of man and woman from those who were born as such and identify as such. With that being the basis of the distinction, it's just not going to be acceptable to the majority.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i will explain clearly why i think the cis description is entirely unnecessary. It is only in existence because the trans community want to be classified without distinction as being men or women. So they want unequivocal inclusion in those categories. The reality is that there is a distinction, so they have created the term cis and put everyone else in that bucket. So, in effect, they have removed the simple status of man and woman from those who were born as such and identify as such. With that being the basis of the distinction, it's just not going to be acceptable to the majority.

It's not though. You think cis means that men and women are separated by women/ciswomen and men/cismen? So transpeople are taking men/women for themselves and we are all left with cis? No. It's men and women of which there are cis/trans within each.

Mountain out of molehill.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i will explain clearly why i think the cis description is entirely unnecessary. It is only in existence because the trans community want to be classified without distinction as being men or women. So they want unequivocal inclusion in those categories. The reality is that there is a distinction, so they have created the term cis and put everyone else in that bucket. So, in effect, they have removed the simple status of man and woman from those who were born as such and identify as such. With that being the basis of the distinction, it's just not going to be acceptable to the majority.

Exactly. I just looked up a definition that said "Many transgender people prefer 'cisgender' to biologicial, genetic, real or male or female because of the implications of those".

Basically it is all about their feelings and to hell with how birth women feel. Not having it personally.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Exactly. I just looked up a definition that said "Many transgender people prefer 'cisgender' to biologicial, genetic, real or male or female because of the implications of those".

Basically it is all about their feelings and to hell with how birth women feel. Not having it personally.

So, it's bad for it to be all about their feelings, but fine for it to be all about yours?

Not contradictory at all.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, it's bad for it to be all about their feelings, but fine for it to be all about yours?

Not contradictory at all.

That could work both ways though - there needs to be some middle ground. I have no idea what that could be but as it stands there is always going to be a group who feel hard done to by this - who gets to decide who that is or how is could be addressed is impossible to imagine with such an emotive topic

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

That could work both ways though - there needs to be some middle ground. I have no idea what that could be but as it stands there is always going to be a group who feel hard done to by this - who gets to decide who that is or how is could be addressed is impossible to imagine with such an emotive topic

Exactly.
I fear people will get bullied and hurt before it's all settled. But it has to be settled. I don't see trans issue going away, if anything it will become more prominent. This is the next big issue after settling the homosexuality issue.
I think the number of people questioning their gender will grow as now it is "allowed" by society until it reaches a natural plateau. We need a way of dealing with it.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, it's bad for it to be all about their feelings, but fine for it to be all about yours?

Not contradictory at all.

If not all parties can be placated on this - then those born as women have priority in my opinion. We were born women so why would those that feel like women get priority. It makes no sense.

My biggest issues however are with self-identification due to the privacy and safety issues. That is not happening - women will NOT accept it. And woe betide those forcing it on us when the inevitable happens - and it will. There will be an uproar.