Boy, 4y, allowed to join CoE school as a girl.

Doodledog

All of that is very true Elegran. The activists are absolutely not acting for the majority, but Stonewall's insistence that TWAW, that they have a right to access all safe spaces, that the language be bent to accommodate them acts against 'ordinary' transpeople as well as against women.

This point, Yes! On every thread about trans, the point is made (and refuted by some) that the damage done by the few not only harms females, but also impacts on trans who do not wish to use their trans status to cheat or lie their way into places or events that are for females.
That anyone endorses lying about sex or compels others to lie is what started this thread.

Doodledog I agree, is it so wrong for females to have their own spaces?

Is it so wrong for females to object to trans women (men) going on about their period pains (that they don’t and never will have)?

Is it so wrong for females to object to men dressing up in a way that parodies women’s bodies with over tight clothes revealing their penis?

There are probably 100’s of transgender people quietly going about their lives, not making it all about them. The new wave of cartoon like character trans women are not doing their cause any favours.

All of that is very true Elegran. The activists are absolutely not acting for the majority, but Stonewall's insistence that TWAW, that they have a right to access all safe spaces, that the language be bent to accommodate them acts against 'ordinary' transpeople as well as against women.

Elegran

So in the logic of those who have crossed the Rubicon, those who are happy to be a standard natal untransitioned adult female, possible pleased to be called mother by various naturally conceived, gestated and produced offspring (with all the physical risks, career complications and financial ruination involved in motherhood) are just wimps.

I should have added the words "some of them" to my post. The transwomen I have met at first hand were/are quietly brave. It is only an over-zealous few who have such a hatred of natal women that they attack them verbally like that. Most just want to "pass" and get on with their lives.

They would probably be as obnoxious as men as they are as women - there are plenty of examples of natal (cis?) men whose basic attitude is that women are their natural enemies.

Callistemon21

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Agreed, and depending on how much detail the early years teachers have gone into in their teaching, he would be even more confused.

Callistemon21

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Agreed. I see him as a victim in all this. Even if he thought he was a girl he can’t possibly have understood the politics of it all.

I know the child is 7 now, but 4 when entering the School.

GrannyGravy13

Basically it’s all bo***cks, if you are in possession of them you are male. Wearing a dress and going by a female name, is just playing pretend.

I agree. This child is four, he is too young to make these desitions.
The parents need to parent and tell the child they will discuss when older. The School needs to say they will take the pupil on the sex assigned at birth, and the name given at birth.

Callistemon21

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Agree

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Basically it’s all bo***cks, if you are in possession of them you are male. Wearing a dress and going by a female name, is just playing pretend.

Yup!
No courage, not winners!

We should be kept in our place.

Elegran - I do believe you have it.

So in the logic of those who have crossed the Rubicon, those who are happy to be a standard natal untransitioned adult female, possible pleased to be called mother by various naturally conceived, gestated and produced offspring (with all the physical risks, career complications and financial ruination involved in motherhood) are just wimps.

Therefore Cis women are on this side of transitioning, they haven't crossed the mountain of transition.
They have not yet crossed the Rubicon.

Natal means "born" or "as born".

Cis means "this side of".

The Romans called the part of Gaul that was on their side of the Alps "Cisalpine Gaul" - the part of Gaul that they reached without crossing the mountains. Transalpine Gaul was on the other side of the Alps, a serious journey.

Therefore Cis women are on this side of transitioning, they haven't crossed the mountain of transition.

Logically, being "as born" is the same as "not transitioned" Cis women are "unchanged" from their birth or natal condition. So the two terms ought to be interchangeable. They are not, they have different connotations.

When used by those who have transitioned, "cis" feels as though it contains a silent "yet",, as though non-trans women are lurking at home in safety without braving the dangers of that journey over the Alps. Maybe that is why it seems to imply an insult.

Not just men, JaneJudge. There are women who want to 'other' anyone who accepts that they are the sex they were born into, too.

Well, Cis means 'on this side' and Trans means 'on the far side'.

So are they appropriate terms anyway?

cis is just another term men want us to be othered by

Mollygo

Glorian y you sound really angry and I know you’re Off this thread but you wrote
I don't believe you can tell natal women from cis women, like some do.

I thought they were one and the same thing, except one is an acceptable description and the other some people find offensive. So have I got that wrong, or what difference should I be looking for?

I thought so too.

As far as I'm concerned, cis means 'this side of' and should have been left as a geographical term. It's another word which has undergone a semantic shift.
Eg Cisalpine Gaul as described by the Romans.

I’m off this thread too. . . Until next time I post🤣🤣🤣

Mollygo

Glorian y you sound really angry and I know you’re Off this thread but you wrote
I don't believe you can tell natal women from cis women, like some do.

I thought they were one and the same thing, except one is an acceptable description and the other some people find offensive. So have I got that wrong, or what difference should I be looking for?

It's wrong. You know it is but I struggle to remember which terms are acceptable. Maybe I'm getting dementia who knows.
I'm not angry though just bored with the same-old same-old prejudice, personal attacks and "gotchas" like this one.

Doodledog

We cross posted, Glorianny, but my post still applies, as yours has actually justified the points I made in mine. Resort to insults, and try to pretend they aren't personal by using 'some', or 'those'. Do you have courage of any of your convictions?

DoodledogI know you expect a personal reply to every post you make. I know you find the concept of "some" difficult to deal with usually regarding it as a personal slight. But could I just ask what exactly you expect me to do when there is more than one person or post, but not every person or post involved?

On the other hand you could just accept "some" as meaning a few people and posts and stop trying to pretend it is some way of dodging the issue. Rather than the fact I just CBA to reread all the stuff and list the people.

Glorian y you sound really angry and I know you’re Off this thread but you wrote
I don't believe you can tell natal women from cis women, like some do.

I thought they were one and the same thing, except one is an acceptable description and the other some people find offensive. So have I got that wrong, or what difference should I be looking for?

We cross posted, Glorianny, but my post still applies, as yours has actually justified the points I made in mine. Resort to insults, and try to pretend they aren't personal by using 'some', or 'those'. Do you have courage of any of your convictions?