F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

[Julia9054]

I don't get this term 'CIS.'

What does cis stand for? Why should anyone be named after a toilet cleaner?

The term comes from organic chemistry. It refers to the arrangement of atoms in different version of the same molecule (isomers). Isomers can be cis or trans depending on the orientation of their atoms.

 

[icowden]

I don't get this term 'CIS.'

What does cis stand for? Why should anyone be named after a toilet cleaner?

As explained elsewhere. "cis" is latin and means "on this side" as opposed to "trans" which is "on the other side". It's just the antonymical prefix of Trans. As such "cis" doesn't really get used in the English language as it's sort of the default expectation.

For example "transmit" is to "send across" or "send to the other side". We don't need a cismit as it wouldn't make sense. Transubstantiate is "the other side of an essential part or essential nature. But we wouldn't use cissubstantiate - just substantiate.

However in an ideology which wants definite articles you have trans male or cis male. Male would include both categories,

 

[AuroraSaab]

There are no sub sets of sex though. There's just male and female. If you include 'things which aren't male', ie women, in the category 'male' it's no longer a meaningful category. In fact it then includes everyone.

 

[BoldonLad]

As explained elsewhere. "cis" is latin and means "on this side" as opposed to "trans" which is "on the other side". It's just the antonymical prefix of Trans. As such "cis" doesn't really get used in the English language as it's sort of the default expectation.

For example "transmit" is to "send across" or "send to the other side". We don't need a cismit as it wouldn't make sense. Transubstantiate is "the other side of an essential part or essential nature. But we wouldn't use cissubstantiate - just substantiate.

However in an ideology which wants definite articles you have trans male or cis male. Male would include both categories,

Interesting choice of word

 

[icowden]

There are no sub sets of sex though. There's just male and female. If you include 'things which aren't male', ie women, in the category 'male' it's no longer a meaningful category. In fact it then includes everyone.

This is why we have the new ideology of Gender and Sex where Sex biological but Gender is a wonderful interchangeable spectrum. Conventions such as Male and Female must be changed in case someone finds them difficult to deal with. Hence we have cis:male, cis:female, trans:male, trans:female and more esoteric categories such as non-binary, queer, polygender, genderfluid, pansexual. There is nothing wrong with wanting to use these terms but it's hard (for me at least) to see what the benefits are in using them, and quite why the force behind the ideology is so strong.

To give you an example, on your medical health record, your doctor must now (if allowed by the software) record both your Sex (biological) and your Gender. Gender is used for reporting by central government as much if not more than biological sex. Medically, a doctor doesn't care about your gender, they care about your sex as this will affect what treatments, screening etc might be suitable for you.

The changes are about supporting Trans people, improving their safety and making the world a better place for them to deal with their issues. But it doesn't alter the fact that in 2019, people with gender dysphoria only made up 0.001% of the population in England. 8000 out of 59 million people. This raise questions about how proportionate the Trans inclusivity agenda is.

There are other ethical questions too - for example we don't support people with apotemnophilia (body mutilation disorder) if they want a limb removed, but we do support people with gender dysphoria undergoing cosmetic surgery and taking hormones to drastically alter their bodies, and there are concerns about the age at which people should be allowed these treatments.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I agree. I don't have any issue with recording gender identity, as long as it's an optional box after recording birth sex. I would be leaving it blank, obviously.

If we don't accurately record the data the stats are meaningless. You can't plan for health care, for transgender people or others, if all trans people are recorded under how they identify, not birth sex then gender identity. They would in effect vanish from the statistics. Ditto recording crimes, medical stats - inaccurate data is useless data.

Emily Bridge's tv interview was the headline story on Daily Mail online this morning btw. Bumped now for the awful incident in Germany.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

The term comes from organic chemistry. It refers to the arrangement of atoms in different version of the same molecule (isomers). Isomers can be cis or trans depending on the orientation of their atoms.

Wow, thanks for that. And you on holiday, too.

 

[Deleted member 28]

As explained elsewhere. "cis" is latin and means "on this side" as opposed to "trans" which is "on the other side". It's just the antonymical prefix of Trans. As such "cis" doesn't really get used in the English language as it's sort of the default expectation.

For example "transmit" is to "send across" or "send to the other side". We don't need a cismit as it wouldn't make sense. Transubstantiate is "the other side of an essential part or essential nature. But we wouldn't use cissubstantiate - just substantiate.

However in an ideology which wants definite articles you have trans male or cis male. Male would include both categories,

I think we all get it now but what a load of b0llox, or not in some cases, I mean c'mon.

Someone has invented a term to describe something that doesn't need describing in order to appease the people who have chosen to change themselves into something else, why do we need to have a tag affixed to something that doesn't need one?

If someone is transgender then so be it, who benefits from people who aren't having an additional prefix?

 

[winjim]

If someone is transgender then so be it, who benefits from people who aren't having an additional prefix?

It's a bit less cumbersome just to type 'cis'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's more cumbersome to add words where they are neither required by the English language nor wanted by the vast majority to whom they apply.

Noone would type 'cis black' would they. Because it would be offensive to make people a sub set of their own race when there are already perfectly adequate words to describe those who fall into that immutable category. Ditto the word 'woman'. No prefixes required. 'Woman' covers everyone of every race, shape, size, ability, who falls into that immutable category. There aren't two kinds of women.

 

[Julia9054]

It's more cumbersome to add words where they are neither required by the English language nor wanted by the vast majority to whom they apply.

Noone would type 'cis black' would they. Because it would be offensive to make people a sub set of their own race when there are already perfectly adequate words to describe those who fall into that immutable category. Ditto the word 'woman'. No prefixes required. 'Woman' covers everyone of every race, shape, size, ability, who falls into that immutable category. There aren't two kinds of women.

The English language changes over time. We know that you don’t believe in gender and use woman and man to mean someone’s sex. Not everyone uses those words the same way and that’s fine. No one is forcing you to describe yourself as a cis woman (though if someone wanted to use that term to refer to themselves that’s up to them)
In a discussion where the speaker wants to make it clear to the whole audience that they mean “a woman who is not trans” then cis is a perfectly adequate adjective.
We use adjectives to describe subsets of categories all the time. Cis black is obviously a meaningless term but someone might use the term Black African if it was necessary to refer to a specific group of people.

 

[Deleted member 28]

It's a bit less cumbersome just to type 'cis'.

I guess you don't have an answer to WHY this ridiculous tag is even necessary or else you would have explained yourself, do you introduce yourself to others as a 'cis' male?

 

[Deleted member 28]

The English language changes over time. We know that you don’t believe in gender and use woman and man to mean someone’s sex. Not everyone uses those words the same way and that’s fine. No one is forcing you to describe yourself as a cis woman (though if someone wanted to use that term to refer to themselves that’s up to them)
In a discussion where the speaker wants to make it clear to the whole audience that they mean “a woman who is not trans” then cis is a perfectly adequate adjective.
We use adjectives to describe subsets of categories all the time. Cis black is obviously a meaningless term but someone might use the term Black African if it was necessary to refer to a specific group of people.

Can you people in favour of this b*llshit just explain for once WHY is it even necessary?

 

[winjim]

I guess you don't have an answer to WHY this ridiculous tag is even necessary or else you would have explained yourself, do you introduce yourself to others as a 'cis' male?

I literally just told you.

 

[Julia9054]

Can you people in favour of this b*llshit just explain for once WHY is it even necessary?

Because it may be necessary for clarity and as part of a discussion to refer to people who are not trans.
What part of my post to which you are replying is unclear?