[caprimint]

Finally. Thank ****ing god they're not pandering to this **** anymore

[arista]

David Tennant
actor needs to say sorry to the Conservative leader.

He got it very wrong.

Pointed out Live on GMBHD itv
with the great newspaper panel,
Ian Dale (LBC) and Caroline Flint (Former Labour Minister)

[Livia]

Police have visited people citing "hate speech" for saying online that a man cannot change sex and become a woman, something that is scientifically true. Now I hope the terms cisgendered, cis woman and TERF are treated in the same way. I am not a cis woman, I am a woman. I hope transwomen are very happy in the lives they have chosen, I bear them no ill-will, but they are not the same as me. And instead of demanding access to women only spaces, maybe they can campaign to have their own sports, refuges and support groups, just like women did.

This ruling appears to be far more impactful on transwomen than on transmen because they're making a lot of noise about it. But then it's always transwomen making the noise and the threats, never transmen. It was a transwoman who called for people to "punch a TERF in the face". Even coming up with the term TERF in the first place is quite the provocation, while being quite radical themselves. I mean, threats of rape, violence and bombing, pouring all kinds of liquid on women they disagree with... I've never heard of a feminist doing this stuff to transwomen. I've never heard of transmen doing it either, who seem to just want to get on with their chosen lives. Why have we not heard from transmen? Why are transmen not demanding access to men-only spaces and to men's sports and changing rooms? Is it because transwomen are biologically men and have grown up expecting to be listened to in a way women haven't?

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Livia

Now I hope the terms cisgendered, cis woman and TERF are treated in the same way. I am not a cis woman, I am a woman.

Cis is a latin term, an adjective, that means "on this side of" or "on the same side as". It's the opposite of "trans-," which means "on the other side of". It was first used to refer to gender nonconformity in 1914. It's not an insult.

This might shed more light: Cis Is Not A Slur

[Glenn.]

Don’t bother mate. As they say themselves the easily offended cannot be appeased.

[arista]

Strategy Director TransAcual
Keyne Walker.

Moaning on SkyNewsHD Live
That already British Tansport Police
have changed the policy.
So they should Fella/Madame

(Trans Women will now be searched by Men)



He demands Clarity
From the MP's



Protest in Parliament Square?

It is Saturday, Fella/Madame
no one there.......................

[bots]

there is no such thing as cis men

[arista]

Originally Posted by bots

there is no such thing as cis men

Yes


Search gave this

[A cis man is an adult male whose gender
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned
at birth. In simpler terms, a cis man is a person
who identifies as a man and was also assigned
the male sex at birth.
This means that their gender identity (man) matches
their assigned sex at birth (male)]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes


Search gave this

[A cis man is an adult male whose gender
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned
at birth. In simpler terms, a cis man is a person
who identifies as a man and was also assigned
the male sex at birth.
This means that their gender identity (man) matches
their assigned sex at birth (male)]

or in even simpler terms... Man there is no confusion, Man, Transman, Woman, Transwoman,

[arista]

Good on SkyNewsHD
walking around the Noisy Protest
in London on the green at Parliament

No Fights
yet

[BBXX]

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you.

Sadly people on this forum will read this well written explanation and still say they're not a subset of women even though that's not what it means at all. A lot of us gave up trying to explain a long time ago. It's very nice to see posts from someone who is not jaded.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you.

There is a cis woman on here that does this every time the word cis is mentioned. Like Jessica says, we kinda gave up on explaining it to her.

A great post

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

Sadly people on this forum will read this well written explanation and still say they're not a subset of women even though that's not what it means at all. A lot of us gave up trying to explain a long time ago. It's very nice to see posts from someone who is not jaded.

Originally Posted by Glenn.

There is a cis woman on here that does this every time the word cis is mentioned. Like Jessica says, we kinda gave up on explaining it to her.

A great post

Appreciate it

[arista]

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by arista

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

After one day of protests ?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

Its almost like they don't want a second term isn't it, no wonder Starmer didn't refer to the judgement at all...

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Its almost like they don't want a second term isn't it, no wonder Starmer didn't refer to the judgement at all...

Yes
This week
Parliament returns this Tuesday, 22nd April

So I am sure loads will try to drag this debate in.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes
This week
Parliament returns this Tuesday, 22nd April

So I am sure loads will try to drag this debate in.

I will be well pissed off if they waste more time on this, they have plenty to be getting on with, and apparently there will be a rebellion over the proposed disability cuts

[Barry.]

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Barry.

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

Parliament must clarify the new Rules.
This Tuesday.

No need to Panic.

[Barry.]

Originally Posted by arista

Parliament must clarify the new Rules.
This Tuesday.

No need to Panic.

Was I panicking there?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Barry.

Was I panicking there?

A little bit
only

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Barry.

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

[Barry.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

Oh yes I worry about the men who pretend to be women to get in their prisons to abuse them, however I also feel bad for the trans woman who just wants to be them in the prison too. I see it from both sides but I don’t like that all trans women are put in the same box as those scumbags too