CIS women

Women being called CIS was never a response to any woman's needs!

I do. I also think our language needs to change to express gender. We're stuck in binary mode and we are moving to express shades of being/gender.

Other cultures do this.

I also know ALL change involves struggle. The old guard (you, me, our generation) die off and the change becomes embedded.

We're the past.

And this is my final salvo on the subject. Moving on to another thread.

WOMAN expresses all shades of being/acting/feeling/dressing/behaving/doing.

CIS woman does not.

CIS was never a term coined by women for women.

Woman/female does not infer how one behaves or dresses or feels. It allows for a full spectrum of all of that within the female sex.

CIS is far more "binary". It defines women by behaviours.

And they always flounce as well. But useful for other people to see the lack of a coherent arguement.

Maybe "cis" could be replaced by "real woman"!!!!!!

Ducks below parapet!

Cisgender (sometimes cissexual, often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. For example, someone who identifies as a woman and was assigned female at birth is a cisgender woman.

I've just had to Google this

Who knew we are all CIS women lol as Luckygirl said why can't we just be women. What a load of pc tripe.

I’ll join you there Luckygirl
Hillary and Chelsea Clinton’s new book “Gutsy Women” says it all, unsurprisingly it is not subtitled “Gutsy Ciswomen”.

Thank goodness for some common sense posts as the rest of the tosh has left me with vague indigestion.
There is not any Gransnet member agenda to oppose a modern movement designed to support vulnerable people you know.

I wonder if the difference is that truly gutsy women (the heroines of SOE, the women at Bletchley Park, the likes of Edith Cavell, Florence Nightingale, Betty Boothroyd, Baroness Hale, the Queen, even, for heavens sake Margaret Thatcher ) got on and did , while those who couldnt or can’t content themselves by whingeing that it’s down to language?

Hear hear MawB and notanan2 we can’t all agree on everything on GN but you would think we ( women) could on
This cis label, at least.
We are certainly not ‘the past’ either ( said indignantly) and this subject is worth the fight.

I have to take issue with several of your points GagaJo, firstly I appreciate we women are not a homegeneous mass hence your different point of view. I can only speak for myself, I haven't felt as I've aged, I've somehow become degendered as you put it, on the contrary as I am still experiencing some of the excesses of the menopause that alone focuses the mind as to what sex I am. I know some women have expressed they feel invisible as they age, personally I don't, but maybe what comes as time gathers pace, is not caring quite so much about your outward appearance, for example I know I don't give a stuff how I look in leggings and t shirt when I go to the gym (mixed) maybe I would have once, I am aware that the younger girls look toned and fit in a way that I don't, good luck to them, as you say it's their time now, I'd have looked like them once but whilst I would tweak certain things about myself if I could, I can honestly say I'm not that hung up about my imperfections as say a younger demographic appear to be, if selfies are anything to go by, so yes most of us move on from the preoccupation of what we look like and are less obsessed with the superficial, which is in many ways liberating.

Whilst I agree that the younger generation are the ones to take new concepts forward, I do not see my own older demographic's point of view as irrelevant, could there be a worse form of discrimination than saying to any one sector "your thoughts don't matter". However, moving on from age, anyone who has been on MN will see that they, who I assume as many state they are mothers of younger children, are not in the same age bracket as those here on GN. The voices there are representative of many women who are vociferous in their criticisms of a whole gamut of legislation or proposed legislation that will affect their lives and their children's lives. For example, mothers express their dismay at that their daughters' schools have implemented mixed gender toilets, several have spoken how their girls boycott them and concerns how "holding on" can have adverse physical ramifications. I think most of us can remember teen years and periods, I seem to recall, I'm not sure if I'm typical, my periods were heavier then, I was at an all girls school, I wonder how many girls will be comfortable having to change their sanitrary paraphernailia in a communal toilet area, bearing in mind some on MN have voiced concerns that not all these units have floor to ceiling cubicles. Are the female pupils consulted about such changes, I don't know? One mother said her year seven child started at her new school and these arrangements were already in place, the child and her peers weren't comfortable with what was on offer. If my 9 year old granddaughter is anything to go by when I take her swimming, she dives into one of the curtained off cubicles she wants absolute privacy at the moment for her flat chested and hairless body and leaves me to get dressed in the main changing area with everyone else I'm happy to accommodate her embarrassment let her have the cubicle to herself, I remember with my own boys a self consciousness sets in at a certain age and children often set their own parameters as far as privacy is concerned with out suggestion from parents.

Other women on MN in the working world have complained about staff toilets becoming unisex and many avoid them, often citing their disgust and the amount of wee all over the toilet seat and floor as a primary reason.

Marks and Spencers and other retailers have made the rather fatuous assertion that everyone should use the changing room they feel comfortable with. My feeling is that their core customer will be women and I imagine a high proportion of those will not be comfortable with a man in the next cubicle whilst they are stripped down to their underwear with just a curtain between them and someone of the opposite sex. I'd have thought their downward profit spirtal part and parcel or the general demise that surrounds the high street, they cannot afford to alienate their core customer, and if MN are anything to go by that's exactly what they are doing.......and what of the women from more conservative cultures, whose religion will simply preclude them from being in a state of undress where men are likely to be present, do they also not matter? I find it farcical that M&S for example can ask for feedback on products such as a cushion say, I've had email questionnaires to that effect, but they don't seek to consult their customer on such a paramount issue as mixed changing rooms.

Going back to the original post, I'm with everyone else, I'm sick of Jo Swinson et al using the completly unnecessary prefix "cis" to redefine our status as women.

Agree whole heartedly with Terri and Maw. I live in a Lib dems constituency, waiting for them to canvass me so I can tell them what I think about what someone else described as b........s!

spirtal spiral

More support for maw, TerriBull and notanan.
I found the suggestion that. As older women, we should simply back off with our fixed, old fashioned ideas offensive.

Young feminist women I know have faced some dreadful abuse from the aggressive section of trans activism.

Blimey, first thought this was a thread about women who work at the CoOp. How wrong can you be. Just had a quick scan through the OP, this could prove very enlightening so must read it properly. On the face of it I do not understand the side-lining of those of us born female one bit. For those who scream and shout about Human Rights all the time where the heck are ours?

I'm with Notanan et al on this. Regarding M&S, the trans issue only cuts one way. A friend in the NW of England says her local branch allows anyone to use the women's fitting rooms but only men are permitted into the men's room.

As for Gagajo's posts, though she won't see this, as she's left, I am perplexed that she presumably supports 100% that people should be addressed by the pronouns they choose, yet she does not extend that courtesy to women to call themselves what they wish to be called. We have to put up with what someone else decides us to be. What's progressive about that?

I understand Jo Swinson has upset lesbians with her refuge comments over this new ideology quasi religious belief that everyone has a gendered identity, a soul that is in the correct body, the wrong soul in the wrong body which is trapped or two souls - one masculine and one feminine - that jump in and out of a body (no idea where the two non binary souls reside between visits to the body). We used to call it having a personality.

This seems to be the same way Tim Farron upset the same community with his religious beliefs.

I don't understand any of it so I googled and got the construction industry scheme.

It's yet another example of women having to move aside for men. 'We want to access all the things that women can, so the women who have set these up should be redefined as cis, so that we can do so'.

Another infuriating thing is that when you look at 'female-only spaces' they are few and far between. For generations women were not allowed in pubs (even some cafes if unaccompanied at night), golf clubs, many universities, etc, and were segregated in others (the forces, some universities, lots of occupations etc), and that was ok, but now that men* want to use the same swimming pools and changing rooms, we are being unreasonable when we object.

Gajajo, if you are still reading, you can't have it both ways. Either your ten years as a teacher is relevant to the discussion or you are too busy fitting in with mainstream teaching duties to be involved with trans children. You can't claim both.

It is so frustrating to see women being gaslighted like this. Either we have to accept the trans agenda and step aside for men, or we are being regressive, we lack understanding, or we are TOLD what to THINK as though we are all stupid, or just old. I said this would happen at the beginning of the thread, and sure enough, it did.

*And surely cis men who are not in the process of becoming trans, but have self-defined as female are men, by anyone's standards?

Grapefruitpip I don't understand any of it so I googled and got the construction industry scheme

I laughed out loud when I saw this. (Wouldn't dare put LOL)

Me too, eazybee

Good, we need a laugh.

Good post Terri

hear hear Doodledog

I thought cisgender applies to anyone, man or woman who is the gender they were born with.

Personally though I don't think it's anyone's business when filling out application forms what gender anyone is unless it's a form for the doctor who needs to know which bits of anatomy you have that may need treatment or preventary measures.

Anyone who believes that trans people are just mentally ill do not understand the complexity of the human body, especially when some people are born with physical elements of both genders, it's not surprising that it happens in various other ways.