FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why is there suddenly so much hostility toward trans people?
Why is there suddenly so much hostility toward trans people?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure there is a significant rise in anti-trans sentiment. It seems to me that trans people are generally accepted. The popularity and lack of condemnation of RuPaul's Drag Race shows that people can cope with others being different. All I see is an argument between 2 groups of extremists. Those trans people that think they should be given more rights than non-trans people, and a minority of women that have a bee in their bonnet about penises in women's toilets. My guess is that if all the trans people stopped banging on about how they must be respected, everyone else would be more inclined to just leave them along to get in with their lives in peace. Short version: there isn't a lot of anti-trans sentiment, just a few noisy people." How do you define “significant”? Because while the majority may be indifferent or inclusive, the tone of public debate, the policy direction, and the media coverage have all shifted toward hostility. That’s measurable. Hate crimes recorded as transphobic have risen sharply in the past five years according to Home Office data. The EHRC has reversed long-standing guidance on inclusion. Politicians now routinely treat our rights as optional. RuPaul’s Drag Race isn’t a gauge of acceptance; drag performance and trans identity aren’t the same thing. Public tolerance for entertainment doesn’t translate into respect for real people’s legal or social status. You mention “extra rights.” Which rights, specifically, do you believe trans people are asking for that others don’t already have? From my perspective, the demand is for existing rights — dignity, privacy, safety, legal recognition — to be applied equally and consistently, not for new ones to be invented. This is why I’m asking these questions: to understand where the disconnect lies between my lived reality and how others perceive it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure there is a significant rise in anti-trans sentiment. It seems to me that trans people are generally accepted. The popularity and lack of condemnation of RuPaul's Drag Race shows that people can cope with others being different. All I see is an argument between 2 groups of extremists. Those trans people that think they should be given more rights than non-trans people, and a minority of women that have a bee in their bonnet about penises in women's toilets. My guess is that if all the trans people stopped banging on about how they must be respected, everyone else would be more inclined to just leave them along to get in with their lives in peace. Short version: there isn't a lot of anti-trans sentiment, just a few noisy people." Interesting, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you define “significant”? Because while the majority may be indifferent or inclusive, the tone of public debate, the policy direction, and the media coverage have all shifted toward hostility." That's how the media works these days - get the people all riled up and they'll keep coming back for more. You see just as much ire directed at the TERFs. "That’s measurable." Is it? How are you going to measure those changes in tone of the media? "Politicians now routinely treat our rights as optional." Which rights do you believe trans people have that politicians are eroding? "You mention “extra rights.” Which rights, specifically, do you believe trans people are asking for that others don’t already have?" The obvious one is the right to control others opinions. Some trans people are arguing that it should be a criminal offence for someone to disagree with the idea that a person can change gender. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have not met anyone (whom we know to be) hostile towards trans people." I have never met any Trans person that I know of, but thats not a surprise considering how small a percentage they make up of the UK population. Maybe this is why I am not aware of hostility, actual or on the rise. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it all seamed to kick off in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon was very keen to push self identification a bit further than was sensible & the Harry Potter woman who seamed to think that all trans people are rapists. All reason & common sense seams to have been lost somewhere. " You say self-ID was “a bit further than was sensible.” In what way? Because there’s no evidence of harm from countries that already use it — Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Argentina, New Zealand, and several others. None of them have seen increases in assaults, fraud, or misuse of the system. So if self-ID didn’t cause any problems elsewhere, what exactly made it “too far” here? Was it the principle, or the public reaction? The outrage came long before any evidence of risk, which suggests the fear was cultural, not practical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it all seamed to kick off in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon was very keen to push self identification a bit further than was sensible & the Harry Potter woman who seamed to think that all trans people are rapists. All reason & common sense seams to have been lost somewhere. You say self-ID was “a bit further than was sensible.” In what way? Because there’s no evidence of harm from countries that already use it — Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Argentina, New Zealand, and several others. None of them have seen increases in assaults, fraud, or misuse of the system. So if self-ID didn’t cause any problems elsewhere, what exactly made it “too far” here? Was it the principle, or the public reaction? The outrage came long before any evidence of risk, which suggests the fear was cultural, not practical." What outrage are you highlighting? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have not met anyone (whom we know to be) hostile towards trans people." I agree — most people I meet are either supportive or simply don’t see trans issues as something that affects their daily life. The difficulty is that neutrality from the public doesn’t stop organised groups from shaping law and policy. Several gender-critical organisations have stated openly that their aim isn’t to persuade the public but to influence legislation and key appointments within politics and the civil service. That’s how the narrative shifts even when public opinion hasn’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The obvious one is the right to control others opinions. Some trans people are arguing that it should be a criminal offence for someone to disagree with the idea that a person can change gender. " I agree that the media often amplifies outrage to keep people engaged, but that doesn’t fully explain the shift I’m noticing. Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years (Home Office data), and polls like YouGov and Ipsos show a steady rise in people saying trans rights have “gone too far.” Those changes suggest something broader than just headlines. When I said politicians treat our rights as optional, I meant things like the Equality Act being re-interpreted to narrow who’s protected, or the Gender Recognition Reform in Scotland being blocked despite passing democratically. To me, that feels like rights we already had are being treated as negotiable. The part about “controlling opinions” doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve never seen anyone argue that disagreement should be a criminal offence. What people usually mean is that discrimination — being refused a service or treated unfairly — should be covered by the same rules that protect everyone else. The belief itself isn’t illegal; the behaviour can be, if it crosses into harm. And if anyone did argue that simply holding a belief should be criminal, I’d oppose that too. Thinking something isn’t a crime. Acting on it to target or harass someone is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have not met anyone (whom we know to be) hostile towards trans people. I agree — most people I meet are either supportive or simply don’t see trans issues as something that affects their daily life. The difficulty is that neutrality from the public doesn’t stop organised groups from shaping law and policy. Several gender-critical organisations have stated openly that their aim isn’t to persuade the public but to influence legislation and key appointments within politics and the civil service. That’s how the narrative shifts even when public opinion hasn’t." Thats an assumption on your behalf about public opinion. The same could be levelled at those following the ideology you follow, Gender Affirming. It's not hostility against anyone its just people promoting their beliefs, which dont align with yours. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The obvious one is the right to control others opinions. Some trans people are arguing that it should be a criminal offence for someone to disagree with the idea that a person can change gender. I agree that the media often amplifies outrage to keep people engaged, but that doesn’t fully explain the shift I’m noticing. Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years (Home Office data), and polls like YouGov and Ipsos show a steady rise in people saying trans rights have “gone too far.” Those changes suggest something broader than just headlines. When I said politicians treat our rights as optional, I meant things like the Equality Act being re-interpreted to narrow who’s protected, or the Gender Recognition Reform in Scotland being blocked despite passing democratically. To me, that feels like rights we already had are being treated as negotiable. The part about “controlling opinions” doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve never seen anyone argue that disagreement should be a criminal offence. What people usually mean is that discrimination — being refused a service or treated unfairly — should be covered by the same rules that protect everyone else. The belief itself isn’t illegal; the behaviour can be, if it crosses into harm. And if anyone did argue that simply holding a belief should be criminal, I’d oppose that too. Thinking something isn’t a crime. Acting on it to target or harass someone is." So if I said to you that you are not a woman, because I don't believe that gender and sex are different, you wouldn't say that was criminal? You'd support my right to say this, if it was my honest held belief? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ..." But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before? "... and polls like YouGov and Ipsos show a steady rise in people saying trans rights have “gone too far.”" That's just people having an opinion that the balance isn't right. That doesn't suggest that people are anti-trans. "When I said politicians treat our rights as optional, I meant things like the Equality Act being re-interpreted to narrow who’s protected ..." You're using very leading language there. The law wasn't "re-interpreted". The Supreme Court was asked to explain how the law should be applied, and they came up with a detailed legal explanation. Some people didn't like that explanation, but there was no change in the law. And no politicians were involved. "or the Gender Recognition Reform in Scotland being blocked despite passing democratically." That was nothing to do with gender rights. The SNP pushed forward a law that they knew was incompatible with UK law, just so that they could claim that Westminster was denying Scottish democracy. "The part about “controlling opinions” doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve never seen anyone argue that disagreement should be a criminal offence." I've heard plenty of people say that deliberate misgendering should be considered a hate crime. "What people usually mean is that discrimination — being refused a service or treated unfairly — should be covered by the same rules that protect everyone else." There already is a law to prevent that. What further law do you think is needed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ... But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before? ... and polls like YouGov and Ipsos show a steady rise in people saying trans rights have “gone too far.” That's just people having an opinion that the balance isn't right. That doesn't suggest that people are anti-trans. When I said politicians treat our rights as optional, I meant things like the Equality Act being re-interpreted to narrow who’s protected ... You're using very leading language there. The law wasn't "re-interpreted". The Supreme Court was asked to explain how the law should be applied, and they came up with a detailed legal explanation. Some people didn't like that explanation, but there was no change in the law. And no politicians were involved. or the Gender Recognition Reform in Scotland being blocked despite passing democratically. That was nothing to do with gender rights. The SNP pushed forward a law that they knew was incompatible with UK law, just so that they could claim that Westminster was denying Scottish democracy. The part about “controlling opinions” doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve never seen anyone argue that disagreement should be a criminal offence. I've heard plenty of people say that deliberate misgendering should be considered a hate crime. What people usually mean is that discrimination — being refused a service or treated unfairly — should be covered by the same rules that protect everyone else. There already is a law to prevent that. What further law do you think is needed?" On “reports vs convictions” Police-recorded hate crime isn’t just people saying they felt victimised — it’s a recorded criminal offence with a hate-motivation flag. Under-reporting is well established, and conviction data always lag behind incidents because most cases never reach court. On “gone too far” polls I agree that’s an attitude measure, not proof of bigotry. What it shows is a shift in public mood that makes policy rollbacks easier — which is the trend I’m talking about. On courts and “no change in law” Courts interpret. Interpretation changes application. Saying “no change in law” overlooks how guidance and enforcement then shift in response. People experience the outcome of those interpretations, not the statute wording. I actually made a separate thread breaking down how the Equality Act already allows single-sex spaces when applied by natal sex. Many people argued with me there too — even though that’s what the law literally says. The confusion shows how interpretation, not text, drives real-world impact. On Scotland’s GRR block Westminster used a Section 35 order to stop a devolved bill — a power that had never been used in modern devolution. Calling that “nothing to do with gender rights” feels incomplete when the stated reason was its interaction with the Equality Act. On “controlling opinions” I don’t believe thought should ever be criminalised. Misgendering as an opinion isn’t a crime; sustained personal targeting can cross into harassment, the same line the law draws for any protected belief. Thought is free; conduct has limits. On “what further law is needed” Mostly clearer guidance and consistent enforcement of the Equality Act that already exists — equal access, no carve-outs, no thought policing. My point isn’t that more people hate us. It’s that the intensity of hostility has increased in outcomes: more recorded incidents, sharper rhetoric, and narrower readings of existing protections. I’m trying to reconcile that lived reality with what others say they see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality is people generally are not hostile. It just appears that way because of how many trans people act. Most people just accept yes trans exist and leave it at that. But when somebody makes a choice to call themselves a woman yet fully dresses like a man with a huge beard and muscles so when somebody calls them sir they just start arguing and shouting about misgendering. Nobody cares about what somebody chooses so when a trans person causes an argument over a word when somebody has spoken english how it was supposed to be used it makes the non trans look like they were being disrespectful or abusive when in fact its caused by the trans person. " That’s not my experience at all, and I’m sure that’s not what you meant, but your comment reads a bit like blaming trans people for the hostility directed at us. It’s difficult to deny that trans existence has become a political flashpoint — not because of trans people, but because certain politicians and commentators have turned it into a culture-war issue. That framing benefits them by distracting from economic and social policy failures. From where I’m standing, the “trans debate” isn’t really about us. It’s about using our visibility to build momentum for a wider political project — one that includes undermining the European Convention on Human Rights and, with it, protections that go far beyond gender issues, including workers’ rights and due process. How am I wrong here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there's a lot of sensationalism occurring. The thread about 84% of Trans people in the UK being scared is one such example. It's wildly inaccurate and the report from the PinkNews is nothing short of bait material to wipe up the Trans community that this issue is far bigger than it is. Things like this just dont help, Mrs x" That article was based on YouGov polling, and across the political spectrum YouGov is generally regarded as one of the most reliable and methodologically transparent pollsters. Their data are used by outlets from The Times to The Guardian and by all major parties. If you have evidence that the polling itself was inaccurate or misrepresented, I’d genuinely like to see it. So far, I’ve seen disagreement with the conclusion, but not a challenge to the data or the methodology. Sensationalism exists in all directions, but verifiable statistics aren’t “bait.” They’re information we can all examine. If the numbers are wrong, the correction should be sourced just as clearly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ... But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before? ... and polls like YouGov and Ipsos show a steady rise in people saying trans rights have “gone too far.” That's just people having an opinion that the balance isn't right. That doesn't suggest that people are anti-trans. When I said politicians treat our rights as optional, I meant things like the Equality Act being re-interpreted to narrow who’s protected ... You're using very leading language there. The law wasn't "re-interpreted". The Supreme Court was asked to explain how the law should be applied, and they came up with a detailed legal explanation. Some people didn't like that explanation, but there was no change in the law. And no politicians were involved. or the Gender Recognition Reform in Scotland being blocked despite passing democratically. That was nothing to do with gender rights. The SNP pushed forward a law that they knew was incompatible with UK law, just so that they could claim that Westminster was denying Scottish democracy. The part about “controlling opinions” doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve never seen anyone argue that disagreement should be a criminal offence. I've heard plenty of people say that deliberate misgendering should be considered a hate crime. What people usually mean is that discrimination — being refused a service or treated unfairly — should be covered by the same rules that protect everyone else. There already is a law to prevent that. What further law do you think is needed? On “reports vs convictions” Police-recorded hate crime isn’t just people saying they felt victimised — it’s a recorded criminal offence with a hate-motivation flag. Under-reporting is well established, and conviction data always lag behind incidents because most cases never reach court. On “gone too far” polls I agree that’s an attitude measure, not proof of bigotry. What it shows is a shift in public mood that makes policy rollbacks easier — which is the trend I’m talking about. On courts and “no change in law” Courts interpret. Interpretation changes application. Saying “no change in law” overlooks how guidance and enforcement then shift in response. People experience the outcome of those interpretations, not the statute wording. I actually made a separate thread breaking down how the Equality Act already allows single-sex spaces when applied by natal sex. Many people argued with me there too — even though that’s what the law literally says. The confusion shows how interpretation, not text, drives real-world impact. On Scotland’s GRR block Westminster used a Section 35 order to stop a devolved bill — a power that had never been used in modern devolution. Calling that “nothing to do with gender rights” feels incomplete when the stated reason was its interaction with the Equality Act. On “controlling opinions” I don’t believe thought should ever be criminalised. Misgendering as an opinion isn’t a crime; sustained personal targeting can cross into harassment, the same line the law draws for any protected belief. Thought is free; conduct has limits. On “what further law is needed” Mostly clearer guidance and consistent enforcement of the Equality Act that already exists — equal access, no carve-outs, no thought policing. My point isn’t that more people hate us. It’s that the intensity of hostility has increased in outcomes: more recorded incidents, sharper rhetoric, and narrower readings of existing protections. I’m trying to reconcile that lived reality with what others say they see." On the single sex spaces, thats a logistical issue. It's an exception allowed under the Equality Act. If the world was an ideal place right now, everyone would have their own private room to use. But thats not the case. The definition given in this case was that of sex and it was defined that a man meant a biological man. It did this to provide consistency throughout the Act. You seem to think that this is somehow an attempt at discrimination against less than 100,000 Trans men & Trans woman but you dont see how it could protect the rights of tens of millions of woman & men. It's a balancing act, which requires a consistent approach and coherent principles and this formed part of the decision. "The practical problems which follow under a certificated-sex approach are clear indicators that such an interpretation is incorrect … The meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ must be consistent wherever they appear in the EA 2010; they cannot bear one meaning in one part and another meaning in another part." Paragraphs around 189–197) "“The term ‘sex’ is used throughout the EA 2010 for the purpose of protecting women as a class; it is tied up with the structure of the Act — for example, the exceptions for single-sex services, occupational requirements, privacy, and sports. To read ‘sex’ in a trans-inclusive or certificated sense would undermine those structural arrangements.” (paras 193–197)" S the Court considered how service providers, public bodies, and legal practitioners rely on stable definitions to decide when single-sex exceptions or services apply and judged that adopting a “certificated sex” approach would make the law incoherent, inconsistent, unpredictable, and unworkable in those real-world settings. Thats not hostility or discrimination, its just clarity, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the single sex spaces, thats a logistical issue. It's an exception allowed under the Equality Act. If the world was an ideal place right now, everyone would have their own private room to use. But thats not the case. The definition given in this case was that of sex and it was defined that a man meant a biological man. It did this to provide consistency throughout the Act. You seem to think that this is somehow an attempt at discrimination against less than 100,000 Trans men & Trans woman but you dont see how it could protect the rights of tens of millions of woman & men. It's a balancing act, which requires a consistent approach and coherent principles and this formed part of the decision. "The practical problems which follow under a certificated-sex approach are clear indicators that such an interpretation is incorrect … The meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ must be consistent wherever they appear in the EA 2010; they cannot bear one meaning in one part and another meaning in another part." Paragraphs around 189–197) "“The term ‘sex’ is used throughout the EA 2010 for the purpose of protecting women as a class; it is tied up with the structure of the Act — for example, the exceptions for single-sex services, occupational requirements, privacy, and sports. To read ‘sex’ in a trans-inclusive or certificated sense would undermine those structural arrangements.” (paras 193–197)" S the Court considered how service providers, public bodies, and legal practitioners rely on stable definitions to decide when single-sex exceptions or services apply and judged that adopting a “certificated sex” approach would make the law incoherent, inconsistent, unpredictable, and unworkable in those real-world settings. Thats not hostility or discrimination, its just clarity, Mrs x" I think you may have misread what I said. I agree that the Equality Act allows for single-sex exceptions — that’s written clearly into the law. The key point is the threshold: those exclusions have to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It isn’t automatic, and that bar is deliberately high. From a legal standpoint, if a service provider genuinely meets that bar, then yes — they can exclude. But it’s intentionally difficult to justify, especially without an adequate alternative that maintains the dignity, privacy, and security of trans people. The Equality Act wasn’t written to make exclusion easy; it was written to make it lawful only when no other reasonable option exists. When I mentioned discrimination, I wasn’t suggesting the court ruling itself was hostile. My concern is how those rulings and headlines are being used — often stripped of nuance — to imply exclusion is now the default rather than the exception. That misunderstanding is what turns legal interpretation into social hostility. My personal view hasn’t changed: trans people have been using women’s facilities for decades without issue. The law hasn’t suddenly made that unsafe; the politics around it have made it controversial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great to have someone such as you to put into words and explain how most citizens feel." Not sure who you’re referring to here — who are you talking to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there's a lot of sensationalism occurring. The thread about 84% of Trans people in the UK being scared is one such example. It's wildly inaccurate and the report from the PinkNews is nothing short of bait material to wipe up the Trans community that this issue is far bigger than it is. Things like this just dont help, Mrs x That article was based on YouGov polling, and across the political spectrum YouGov is generally regarded as one of the most reliable and methodologically transparent pollsters. Their data are used by outlets from The Times to The Guardian and by all major parties. If you have evidence that the polling itself was inaccurate or misrepresented, I’d genuinely like to see it. So far, I’ve seen disagreement with the conclusion, but not a challenge to the data or the methodology. Sensationalism exists in all directions, but verifiable statistics aren’t “bait.” They’re information we can all examine. If the numbers are wrong, the correction should be sourced just as clearly." The actual poll size was comprised of 457 Trans people, 384 who said they feel unsafe with 64 saying they felt 'safe'. So the headline from the PinkNews, which stated... "Overwhelming majority of trans people feel unsafe in UK, poll reveals" Was just "click bait". In fact you yourself stated that 84% of Trans people in the UK feel unsafe on a previous thread. It's just not true and a distortion to suit an agenda at the PinkNews. Just as a side note, the same poll, when asked about accessing public toilet facilities: 42% said it was very easy + fairly easy. 49% said it was fairly difficult + very difficult to access appropriate toilets when out in public. Which if left at those figures would suggest its not that much of an issue. But I cannot use it to confirm or deny this issue as the sample size is so small. The 65%, quoted about Trans people suffering abuse, is only 65% of those who responded deduction, so 297 Trans people reported this. So do thes figures confirm this as an act of sensationalism? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The actual poll size was comprised of 457 Trans people, 384 who said they feel unsafe with 64 saying they felt 'safe'. So the headline from the PinkNews, which stated... "Overwhelming majority of trans people feel unsafe in UK, poll reveals" Was just "click bait". In fact you yourself stated that 84% of Trans people in the UK feel unsafe on a previous thread. It's just not true and a distortion to suit an agenda at the PinkNews. Just as a side note, the same poll, when asked about accessing public toilet facilities: 42% said it was very easy + fairly easy. 49% said it was fairly difficult + very difficult to access appropriate toilets when out in public. Which if left at those figures would suggest its not that much of an issue. But I cannot use it to confirm or deny this issue as the sample size is so small. The 65%, quoted about Trans people suffering abuse, is only 65% of those who responded deduction, so 297 Trans people reported this. So do thes figures confirm this as an act of sensationalism? Mrs x" Your issue seems to be less with the data and more with how polling works as a concept. A representative sample doesn’t have to include every person in a group; it just needs to be large enough and properly weighted to reflect the wider population. That’s how every opinion poll functions — including voting-intention polls that routinely shape national coverage. For context, a typical UK voting-intention poll surveys around 1,500–2,000 people out of roughly 47 million registered voters — about 0.003–0.004% of the electorate. By comparison, YouGov’s poll of around 500 trans respondents represents roughly 0.075–0.15% of the estimated trans population in the UK. In other words, proportionally speaking, it’s actually far larger than a standard election poll. A sample of 457 trans respondents may sound small, but it’s not unusually so for targeted polling of a minority group. What matters is whether the methodology was sound, not the raw number. If the same company’s sample size is considered reliable when predicting elections, it doesn’t suddenly become “clickbait” when the topic is trans safety. PinkNews didn’t create the numbers; they reported YouGov’s findings. The headline may be simplified — that’s journalism — but the underlying statistic (84% feeling unsafe) accurately represents what respondents said. If you believe the poll was methodologically flawed, the best next step would be to show where YouGov’s approach failed — sampling, weighting, or question design — rather than dismiss the whole dataset as “agenda.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The actual poll size was comprised of 457 Trans people, 384 who said they feel unsafe with 64 saying they felt 'safe'. So the headline from the PinkNews, which stated... "Overwhelming majority of trans people feel unsafe in UK, poll reveals" Was just "click bait". In fact you yourself stated that 84% of Trans people in the UK feel unsafe on a previous thread. It's just not true and a distortion to suit an agenda at the PinkNews. Just as a side note, the same poll, when asked about accessing public toilet facilities: 42% said it was very easy + fairly easy. 49% said it was fairly difficult + very difficult to access appropriate toilets when out in public. Which if left at those figures would suggest its not that much of an issue. But I cannot use it to confirm or deny this issue as the sample size is so small. The 65%, quoted about Trans people suffering abuse, is only 65% of those who responded deduction, so 297 Trans people reported this. So do thes figures confirm this as an act of sensationalism? Mrs x Your issue seems to be less with the data and more with how polling works as a concept. A representative sample doesn’t have to include every person in a group; it just needs to be large enough and properly weighted to reflect the wider population. That’s how every opinion poll functions — including voting-intention polls that routinely shape national coverage. For context, a typical UK voting-intention poll surveys around 1,500–2,000 people out of roughly 47 million registered voters — about 0.003–0.004% of the electorate. By comparison, YouGov’s poll of around 500 trans respondents represents roughly 0.075–0.15% of the estimated trans population in the UK. In other words, proportionally speaking, it’s actually far larger than a standard election poll. A sample of 457 trans respondents may sound small, but it’s not unusually so for targeted polling of a minority group. What matters is whether the methodology was sound, not the raw number. If the same company’s sample size is considered reliable when predicting elections, it doesn’t suddenly become “clickbait” when the topic is trans safety. PinkNews didn’t create the numbers; they reported YouGov’s findings. The headline may be simplified — that’s journalism — but the underlying statistic (84% feeling unsafe) accurately represents what respondents said. If you believe the poll was methodologically flawed, the best next step would be to show where YouGov’s approach failed — sampling, weighting, or question design — rather than dismiss the whole dataset as “agenda.”" Watch out for those dashes, dead give away pmsl. So you feel that the headline was accurate, you dont think it was to be sensational. Ok then 42% of Trans people have no trouble taking a piss whilst out and about then. Cake & Eat it then. But what about you, are you guilty of sensationalism here? I think you are then when you started your thread about Trans people feeling "unsafe". 84% of the Trans people in the UK felt unsafe you said. So either the total numbers of Trans in the UK is 457 or you were sensationalising this issue. What do you say about that? "This week PinkNews reported on a new YouGov poll commissioned by the Good Law Project that found 84% of trans people in the UK feel Britain is "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe" for them." This is a direct quote... "84% of trans people in the UK"... "84%"... "UK".... But thats not true, not even close to being true. Sounds better than 384 Trans people though, I'll give you that, joke. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The courts decision hasnt lowered the proportionate bar, its just raised the evidence required to pass it. Your ideology says that sex and gender are seperate. So Trans woman are woman because they self identify their gender as a woman Sex is about biology, the physical attributes of a person, their anatomy. Under gender identity theory: Sex is biological. Gender is a social and psychological experience. Gender identity is your internal sense of being male, female, both, or neither, defines who you are in gendered terms. So, when someone says “trans women are women,” they are speaking from this theoretical and ethical framework, which recognises gender identity as the decisive factor, not biological sex. But the court ruled that sex means biological, so a man must be a biological man. Gender therefore is taken out of the equation and its so much easier for providers to pass the proportionate test. This view might align to that of Gender critical theory but that too, is a Protected Characteriatic under the Equality Act. But it does seem to be a huge problem, if we are to believe the figures from that poll, you quoted, Mrs x" I don’t actually disagree with most of that, just with your conclusion. The ruling didn’t make it easier to meet the proportionality bar; it only clarified how “sex” is defined for specific sections of the Equality Act. Service providers still have to show that any exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — and that requirement hasn’t changed. They also still have to avoid discrimination under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. So yes, where the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act intersect, “woman” is defined as natal female and “man” as natal male — but that definition doesn’t erase the separate protection for gender reassignment. A policy can comply with one section and still fall foul of another if it’s applied in a discriminatory way. So while the wording of the Act might look tidy on paper, in practice the test hasn’t become easier to meet — just more complicated to navigate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”Watch out for those dashes, dead give away pmsl. So you feel that the headline was accurate, you dont think it was to be sensational. Ok then 42% of Trans people have no trouble taking a piss whilst out and about then. Cake & Eat it then. But what about you, are you guilty of sensationalism here? I think you are then when you started your thread about Trans people feeling "unsafe". 84% of the Trans people in the UK felt unsafe you said. So either the total numbers of Trans in the UK is 457 or you were sensationalising this issue. What do you say about that? "This week PinkNews reported on a new YouGov poll commissioned by the Good Law Project that found 84% of trans people in the UK feel Britain is "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe" for them." This is a direct quote... "84% of trans people in the UK"... "84%"... "UK".... But thats not true, not even close to being true. Sounds better than 384 Trans people though, I'll give you that, joke. Mrs x " No, I wasn’t being sensational. That line is a direct quote from the PinkNews article reporting the YouGov poll. When a headline says “84% of trans people in the UK,” it means of the respondents in the UK sample. That’s standard journalistic phrasing — the same way a voting poll might say “20% of Britons support X Party” even though it only asked around 2,000 people. That’s how polling works everywhere: you survey a representative sample and extrapolate the findings. The percentage refers to responses, not a census head-count. You’re welcome to think the headline could have been worded more literally, but calling it “false” misunderstands how survey data are reported. Unless you can show that YouGov’s sampling or weighting was flawed, the numbers stand. And yes, I’m open about using AI to polish my posts — including adding those em dashes for clarity. It helps me express myself clearly, not create arguments that aren’t mine. For transparency, this is exactly what I put into ChatGPT before your reply. You’ll see the reasoning is the same — the final version is just easier to read. "Watch out those rashes are a dead giveaway. No they are not i am open about using ai to polish my replies. If I give it a paragraph and ask it to make it more clear... it does including those em dashes. As for the rest. That's how polling works. When the news reports that 20% of voters are likely to vote for x party... sm do you day to yourself oh butt that's only 400 people of a 2000 person poll? Of course you don't. Add for me being sensational you literally word be as saying Pink news has reported. That commentary not sensationalism" Where’s the fundamental difference in argument between the two, beyond clarity of presentation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The courts decision hasnt lowered the proportionate bar, its just raised the evidence required to pass it. Your ideology says that sex and gender are seperate. So Trans woman are woman because they self identify their gender as a woman Sex is about biology, the physical attributes of a person, their anatomy. Under gender identity theory: Sex is biological. Gender is a social and psychological experience. Gender identity is your internal sense of being male, female, both, or neither, defines who you are in gendered terms. So, when someone says “trans women are women,” they are speaking from this theoretical and ethical framework, which recognises gender identity as the decisive factor, not biological sex. But the court ruled that sex means biological, so a man must be a biological man. Gender therefore is taken out of the equation and its so much easier for providers to pass the proportionate test. This view might align to that of Gender critical theory but that too, is a Protected Characteriatic under the Equality Act. But it does seem to be a huge problem, if we are to believe the figures from that poll, you quoted, Mrs x I don’t actually disagree with most of that, just with your conclusion. The ruling didn’t make it easier to meet the proportionality bar; it only clarified how “sex” is defined for specific sections of the Equality Act. Service providers still have to show that any exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — and that requirement hasn’t changed. They also still have to avoid discrimination under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. So yes, where the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act intersect, “woman” is defined as natal female and “man” as natal male — but that definition doesn’t erase the separate protection for gender reassignment. A policy can comply with one section and still fall foul of another if it’s applied in a discriminatory way. So while the wording of the Act might look tidy on paper, in practice the test hasn’t become easier to meet — just more complicated to navigate." It has become easier, all any provider has to do is establish biological sex. So as a trans person you do not align with your biological sex, therefore it cannot be discrimination. If you excluded a biological woman from a woman space that could be discrimination. But Transwoman are biological males so that wouldn't apply to you. They've used your own distinction that sex and gender are different and not discrete against you here. It's very simple, the bar hasnt been lowered but the raised the ease with which the test can be proven. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has become easier, all any provider has to do is establish biological sex. So as a trans person you do not align with your biological sex, therefore it cannot be discrimination. If you excluded a biological woman from a woman space that could be discrimination. But Transwoman are biological males so that wouldn't apply to you. They've used your own distinction that sex and gender are different and not discrete against you here. It's very simple, the bar hasnt been lowered but the raised the ease with which the test can be proven. Mrs x" And that’s where the fundamental difference in our understanding lies. I never said the discrimination was based on sex — it isn’t. Under the sex clause there’s no challenge; the issue is under the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Defining “sex” in natal terms doesn’t erase that protection. A service provider can comply with the sex provisions and still breach the Act if their policy places people who are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment at a particular disadvantage. That’s why the bar hasn’t become easier to meet in practice — they still have to justify any exclusion as proportionate and non-discriminatory across both characteristics. So the court clarified terminology, but the duties under gender reassignment didn’t vanish when it did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”Watch out for those dashes, dead give away pmsl. So you feel that the headline was accurate, you dont think it was to be sensational. Ok then 42% of Trans people have no trouble taking a piss whilst out and about then. Cake & Eat it then. But what about you, are you guilty of sensationalism here? I think you are then when you started your thread about Trans people feeling "unsafe". 84% of the Trans people in the UK felt unsafe you said. So either the total numbers of Trans in the UK is 457 or you were sensationalising this issue. What do you say about that? "This week PinkNews reported on a new YouGov poll commissioned by the Good Law Project that found 84% of trans people in the UK feel Britain is "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe" for them." This is a direct quote... "84% of trans people in the UK"... "84%"... "UK".... But thats not true, not even close to being true. Sounds better than 384 Trans people though, I'll give you that, joke. Mrs x No, I wasn’t being sensational. That line is a direct quote from the PinkNews article reporting the YouGov poll. When a headline says “84% of trans people in the UK,” it means of the respondents in the UK sample. That’s standard journalistic phrasing — the same way a voting poll might say “20% of Britons support X Party” even though it only asked around 2,000 people. That’s how polling works everywhere: you survey a representative sample and extrapolate the findings. The percentage refers to responses, not a census head-count. You’re welcome to think the headline could have been worded more literally, but calling it “false” misunderstands how survey data are reported. Unless you can show that YouGov’s sampling or weighting was flawed, the numbers stand. And yes, I’m open about using AI to polish my posts — including adding those em dashes for clarity. It helps me express myself clearly, not create arguments that aren’t mine. For transparency, this is exactly what I put into ChatGPT before your reply. You’ll see the reasoning is the same — the final version is just easier to read. Watch out those rashes are a dead giveaway. No they are not i am open about using ai to polish my replies. If I give it a paragraph and ask it to make it more clear... it does including those em dashes. As for the rest. That's how polling works. When the news reports that 20% of voters are likely to vote for x party... sm do you day to yourself oh butt that's only 400 people of a 2000 person poll? Of course you don't. Add for me being sensational you literally word be as saying Pink news has reported. That commentary not sensationalism Where’s the fundamental difference in argument between the two, beyond clarity of presentation? " Read the article again... The PinkNews explicitly avoided saying that 84% of Trans in the UK, you did that but read it again. Otherwise I can post the whole of the article so that everyone can see I'm correct. I presumed that didnt word it like you suggested because they knew that could be challenged very easily. Less than 350 Trans people isn't as 'news' worthy as 84%. Don't blame yourself, they were "click" baiting the life out of this and unfortunately you just "bit". Got a funny feeling you wont own up to this but rather you'll double down with some sort of silly argument, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has become easier, all any provider has to do is establish biological sex. So as a trans person you do not align with your biological sex, therefore it cannot be discrimination. If you excluded a biological woman from a woman space that could be discrimination. But Transwoman are biological males so that wouldn't apply to you. They've used your own distinction that sex and gender are different and not discrete against you here. It's very simple, the bar hasnt been lowered but the raised the ease with which the test can be proven. Mrs x And that’s where the fundamental difference in our understanding lies. I never said the discrimination was based on sex — it isn’t. Under the sex clause there’s no challenge; the issue is under the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Defining “sex” in natal terms doesn’t erase that protection. A service provider can comply with the sex provisions and still breach the Act if their policy places people who are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment at a particular disadvantage. That’s why the bar hasn’t become easier to meet in practice — they still have to justify any exclusion as proportionate and non-discriminatory across both characteristics. So the court clarified terminology, but the duties under gender reassignment didn’t vanish when it did." But the exceptions of single sex are dictated by sex, not gender reassignment, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you feel that the headline was accurate, you dont think it was to be sensational. Ok then 42% of Trans people have no trouble taking a piss whilst out and about then. Cake & Eat it then. But what about you, are you guilty of sensationalism here? I think you are then when you started your thread about Trans people feeling "unsafe". 84% of the Trans people in the UK felt unsafe you said. So either the total numbers of Trans in the UK is 457 or you were sensationalising this issue. What do you say about that? "This week PinkNews reported on a new YouGov poll commissioned by the Good Law Project that found 84% of trans people in the UK feel Britain is "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe" for them." This is a direct quote... "84% of trans people in the UK"... "84%"... "UK".... But thats not true, not even close to being true. Sounds better than 384 Trans people though, I'll give you that, joke. Mrs x No, I wasn’t being sensational. That line is a direct quote from the PinkNews article reporting the YouGov poll. When a headline says “84% of trans people in the UK,” it means of the respondents in the UK sample. That’s standard journalistic phrasing — the same way a voting poll might say “20% of Britons support X Party” even though it only asked around 2,000 people. That’s how polling works everywhere: you survey a representative sample and extrapolate the findings. The percentage refers to responses, not a census head-count. You’re welcome to think the headline could have been worded more literally, but calling it “false” misunderstands how survey data are reported. Unless you can show that YouGov’s sampling or weighting was flawed, the numbers stand. And yes, I’m open about using AI to polish my posts — including adding those em dashes for clarity. It helps me express myself clearly, not create arguments that aren’t mine. For transparency, this is exactly what I put into ChatGPT before your reply. You’ll see the reasoning is the same — the final version is just easier to read. Watch out those rashes are a dead giveaway. No they are not i am open about using ai to polish my replies. If I give it a paragraph and ask it to make it more clear... it does including those em dashes. As for the rest. That's how polling works. When the news reports that 20% of voters are likely to vote for x party... sm do you day to yourself oh butt that's only 400 people of a 2000 person poll? Of course you don't. Add for me being sensational you literally word be as saying Pink news has reported. That commentary not sensationalism Where’s the fundamental difference in argument between the two, beyond clarity of presentation? Read the article again... The PinkNews explicitly avoided saying that 84% of Trans in the UK, you did that but read it again. Otherwise I can post the whole of the article so that everyone can see I'm correct. I presumed that didnt word it like you suggested because they knew that could be challenged very easily. Less than 350 Trans people isn't as 'news' worthy as 84%. Don't blame yourself, they were "click" baiting the life out of this and unfortunately you just "bit". Got a funny feeling you wont own up to this but rather you'll double down with some sort of silly argument, Mrs x" That’s simply not correct — the PinkNews article really does say what I quoted. The headline reads: “Overwhelming majority of trans people feel unsafe in UK, poll reveals.” And the opening line of the article says: "New research has revealed that transphobia in the UK has left 84 per cent of trans people feeling unsafe." That’s exactly what I referenced. You can check the live page yourself — nothing has been misquoted or exaggerated. As for the poll itself, it surveyed around 457 trans respondents. That might sound small, but proportionally it’s far larger than a standard UK voting-intention poll. Those usually question 1,500–2,000 people out of roughly 47 million registered voters — about 0.003–0.004 % of the electorate. By comparison, a 457-person sample represents about 0.075–0.15 % of the UK’s estimated trans population. Statistically speaking, that makes it a more representative slice of its group than election polling is of the general public. So this isn’t a case of sensationalism or fabrication — it’s a case of applying the same accepted polling standards to a smaller population. If the methodology is valid for elections, it’s valid here too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the exceptions of single sex are dictated by sex, not gender reassignment, Mrs x" You’re absolutely right that the single-sex exceptions are based on sex as defined in the Equality Act, now clarified as natal sex by the Supreme Court. However, as I’ve said, that doesn’t make those decisions immune from challenge under gender reassignment. An organisation can rely on a sex-based exception and still act unlawfully if, in applying it, they treat trans people less favourably or create unnecessary disadvantage. The Act lists sex and gender reassignment as separate protected characteristics — complying with one doesn’t automatically mean you’re compliant with the other. So yes, the exception is sex-based in structure, but its application still has to meet the proportionality test and avoid unjustified discrimination under gender reassignment. That’s the part that often gets lost when this topic is simplified for headlines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you feel that the headline was accurate, you dont think it was to be sensational. Ok then 42% of Trans people have no trouble taking a piss whilst out and about then. Cake & Eat it then. But what about you, are you guilty of sensationalism here? I think you are then when you started your thread about Trans people feeling "unsafe". 84% of the Trans people in the UK felt unsafe you said. So either the total numbers of Trans in the UK is 457 or you were sensationalising this issue. What do you say about that? "This week PinkNews reported on a new YouGov poll commissioned by the Good Law Project that found 84% of trans people in the UK feel Britain is "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe" for them." This is a direct quote... "84% of trans people in the UK"... "84%"... "UK".... But thats not true, not even close to being true. Sounds better than 384 Trans people though, I'll give you that, joke. Mrs x No, I wasn’t being sensational. That line is a direct quote from the PinkNews article reporting the YouGov poll. When a headline says “84% of trans people in the UK,” it means of the respondents in the UK sample. That’s standard journalistic phrasing — the same way a voting poll might say “20% of Britons support X Party” even though it only asked around 2,000 people. That’s how polling works everywhere: you survey a representative sample and extrapolate the findings. The percentage refers to responses, not a census head-count. You’re welcome to think the headline could have been worded more literally, but calling it “false” misunderstands how survey data are reported. Unless you can show that YouGov’s sampling or weighting was flawed, the numbers stand. And yes, I’m open about using AI to polish my posts — including adding those em dashes for clarity. It helps me express myself clearly, not create arguments that aren’t mine. For transparency, this is exactly what I put into ChatGPT before your reply. You’ll see the reasoning is the same — the final version is just easier to read. Watch out those rashes are a dead giveaway. No they are not i am open about using ai to polish my replies. If I give it a paragraph and ask it to make it more clear... it does including those em dashes. As for the rest. That's how polling works. When the news reports that 20% of voters are likely to vote for x party... sm do you day to yourself oh butt that's only 400 people of a 2000 person poll? Of course you don't. Add for me being sensational you literally word be as saying Pink news has reported. That commentary not sensationalism Where’s the fundamental difference in argument between the two, beyond clarity of presentation? Read the article again... The PinkNews explicitly avoided saying that 84% of Trans in the UK, you did that but read it again. Otherwise I can post the whole of the article so that everyone can see I'm correct. I presumed that didnt word it like you suggested because they knew that could be challenged very easily. Less than 350 Trans people isn't as 'news' worthy as 84%. Don't blame yourself, they were "click" baiting the life out of this and unfortunately you just "bit". Got a funny feeling you wont own up to this but rather you'll double down with some sort of silly argument, Mrs x That’s simply not correct — the PinkNews article really does say what I quoted. The headline reads: “Overwhelming majority of trans people feel unsafe in UK, poll reveals.” And the opening line of the article says: New research has revealed that transphobia in the UK has left 84 per cent of trans people feeling unsafe. That’s exactly what I referenced. You can check the live page yourself — nothing has been misquoted or exaggerated. As for the poll itself, it surveyed around 457 trans respondents. That might sound small, but proportionally it’s far larger than a standard UK voting-intention poll. Those usually question 1,500–2,000 people out of roughly 47 million registered voters — about 0.003–0.004 % of the electorate. By comparison, a 457-person sample represents about 0.075–0.15 % of the UK’s estimated trans population. Statistically speaking, that makes it a more representative slice of its group than election polling is of the general public. So this isn’t a case of sensationalism or fabrication — it’s a case of applying the same accepted polling standards to a smaller population. If the methodology is valid for elections, it’s valid here too." I'll accept you are being genuine here but my point about sensationlism still stands. If not then literally 42% of tge Trans population has no issue going to the toilet in public, which negates the impact of your saying this is a big issue. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll accept you are being genuine here but my point about sensationlism still stands. If not then literally 42% of tge Trans population has no issue going to the toilet in public, which negates the impact of your saying this is a big issue. Mrs x" I find that quite a shocking statement. Would you feel the same if a poll showed that 58% of cis women felt unsafe using public toilets? Because the point isn’t that some people manage fine — it’s that a majority feel unsafe. In any other context, if most members of a protected group reported feeling that way, we’d treat it as a sign of a serious social problem, not something to be dismissed. And again, those numbers came from YouGov’s data, not from me. Saying 84% of trans respondents felt unsafe isn’t sensationalism — it’s reporting what the evidence shows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll accept you are being genuine here but my point about sensationlism still stands. If not then literally 42% of tge Trans population has no issue going to the toilet in public, which negates the impact of your saying this is a big issue. Mrs x I find that quite a shocking statement. Would you feel the same if a poll showed that 58% of cis women felt unsafe using public toilets? Because the point isn’t that some people manage fine — it’s that a majority feel unsafe. In any other context, if most members of a protected group reported feeling that way, we’d treat it as a sign of a serious social problem, not something to be dismissed. And again, those numbers came from YouGov’s data, not from me. Saying 84% of trans respondents felt unsafe isn’t sensationalism — it’s reporting what the evidence shows." What are the figure for woman, feeling g unsafe having to share things like loos? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll accept you are being genuine here but my point about sensationlism still stands. If not then literally 42% of tge Trans population has no issue going to the toilet in public, which negates the impact of your saying this is a big issue. Mrs x I find that quite a shocking statement. Would you feel the same if a poll showed that 58% of cis women felt unsafe using public toilets? Because the point isn’t that some people manage fine — it’s that a majority feel unsafe. In any other context, if most members of a protected group reported feeling that way, we’d treat it as a sign of a serious social problem, not something to be dismissed. And again, those numbers came from YouGov’s data, not from me. Saying 84% of trans respondents felt unsafe isn’t sensationalism — it’s reporting what the evidence shows." Can you please show me the same respect I show to you. Please dont misgender me by using the term Cis, or the term Cis towards others as I've told you I find this offensive. I dont want to but I'll refer to you by your biological sex and the pronouns associated with this. Respect is a two way street Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are the figure for woman, feeling g unsafe having to share things like loos? Mrs x" Funnily enough, I actually looked into that earlier. I couldn’t find any relevant polls that measure how safe cis women feel in gendered toilets. The closest research looks at comfort with gender-neutral facilities, where around two-thirds of women reported feeling comfortable using them (a little lower among older respondents). And honestly, it’s hard to imagine those same women would feel less comfortable in the women’s toilets they already use. So while there isn’t a direct dataset, the nearest comparisons suggest that women in general don’t report anywhere near the same level of discomfort that trans people do. That’s the imbalance the poll highlights — not that everyone is unsafe, but that one group faces a level of anxiety most others simply don’t, at least until better polling becomes available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you please show me the same respect I show to you. Please dont misgender me by using the term Cis, or the term Cis towards others as I've told you I find this offensive. I dont want to but I'll refer to you by your biological sex and the pronouns associated with this. Respect is a two way street Mrs x" I haven’t misgendered anyone. I’ve used language that distinguishes whether someone’s gender matches their natal sex. That’s not misgendering — it’s acknowledging both reality and identity accurately. Threatening to misgender someone, however, has nothing to do with respect being a “two-way street.” It isn’t reciprocity; it’s retaliation. I’ve kept my language accurate and neutral throughout, and I’d appreciate if that same standard could be maintained in return. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you please show me the same respect I show to you. Please dont misgender me by using the term Cis, or the term Cis towards others as I've told you I find this offensive. I dont want to but I'll refer to you by your biological sex and the pronouns associated with this. Respect is a two way street Mrs x I haven’t misgendered anyone. I’ve used language that distinguishes whether someone’s gender matches their natal sex. That’s not misgendering — it’s acknowledging both reality and identity accurately. Threatening to misgender someone, however, has nothing to do with respect being a “two-way street.” It isn’t reciprocity; it’s retaliation. I’ve kept my language accurate and neutral throughout, and I’d appreciate if that same standard could be maintained in return." Troll | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Troll" I understand that some people dislike certain words, but personal discomfort doesn’t make a term disrespectful — especially when it’s the accurate and widely accepted one for the context. The word cis simply means someone whose gender matches their natal sex. It’s descriptive, not political, and it’s the standard terminology used in equality law and research. I use it for clarity, not as a label anyone has to personally adopt. If accuracy and calm discussion count as trolling to you, then I think that says more about intent than language. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Troll I understand that some people dislike certain words, but personal discomfort doesn’t make a term disrespectful — especially when it’s the accurate and widely accepted one for the context. The word cis simply means someone whose gender matches their natal sex. It’s descriptive, not political, and it’s the standard terminology used in equality law and research. I use it for clarity, not as a label anyone has to personally adopt. If accuracy and calm discussion count as trolling to you, then I think that says more about intent than language." The disrespect cones when someone is asked not to do something as someone finds it upsetting but you carry on regards less because you dont find it offensive yourself. A bit like using the phrase little guy to describe a person self identifying as a woman even though you'd been asked not to. Or reminding someone that as they are a biological man they can't be a woman. If you know it upsets people dont do it Mrs x Or describing someone as a nice bloke. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The disrespect cones when someone is asked not to do something as someone finds it upsetting but you carry on regards less because you dont find it offensive yourself. A bit like using the phrase little guy to describe a person self identifying as a woman even though you'd been asked not to. Or reminding someone that as they are a biological man they can't be a woman. If you know it upsets people dont do it Mrs x Or describing someone as a nice bloke. " That’s the difference though, isn’t it? The examples you’ve given are scientifically inaccurate and personally targeted. What I’ve said is scientifically accurate, linguistically correct, and only personally objectionable — not because it’s disrespectful, but because it names reality plainly. Respect doesn’t mean rewriting language to protect feelings from facts; it means using words responsibly and without malice. That’s exactly what I’ve done. Would you prefer I said natal female woman instead? It means the same thing, just takes longer to type. The terminology isn’t the problem here — it’s that you don’t like the concept it describes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trans people have always existed in society. Have they or is that just modern medical technology. Of course they have always been gay or lesbian…Trans? The sudden hostility toward trans people, I think, largely comes from social media. It amplifies anything extreme, and people quickly share and spread it. It’s not so different from darker periods in human history, when crowds gathered to witness cruelty or suffering, just now it happens online instead of in person. Social media is incredibly divisive because everyone has an opinion and can hide behind anonymity. That combination often fuels misunderstanding and hostility instead of empathy and dialogue. " There have been examples of trans identities throughout recorded history — from ancient Mesopotamia, to South Asian hijra communities, to Indigenous two-spirit traditions, right through to modern day. It really isn’t a new phenomenon; what’s new is the visibility and language. I agree that social media has amplified hostility, but I sometimes wonder which came first — is social media driving the politics of the culture war, or are politicians exploiting social media to fuel it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a rant or a trap question. I want to understand the reasoning behind what feels like a sharp rise in anti-trans sentiment. I am a trans woman, and over the past few years I have seen attitudes harden — in politics, in the media, and even in day-to-day conversation. I am not asking why some people disagree with aspects of gender policy. Disagreement is normal in any democracy. I am asking why simple existence now provokes such visceral anger. Trans people have always existed in society. The main difference between fifty years ago and today is visibility. The existence, behaviour, and law have remained largely consistent — apart from major legal steps such as the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. Yet it is only in the past decade that our existence has been treated as a social problem. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there is only one anti-trans argument that actually survives scrutiny: “I just don’t like it.” That is not evidence, just emotion — and people are entitled to their feelings. What I am trying to understand is why those feelings run so deep for some. I am unlikely to agree with most of what is said here, but understanding is how bridges are built. If you think trans people existing or being visible causes harm, please explain what that harm is and what evidence supports it. A few boundaries for this discussion: – Stick to verifiable facts — law, data, or direct observation. – No hypotheticals unless you can show they have actually happened. – Keep tone civil. This is about tracing the logic, not trading insults. If you think I am missing a major factor, raise it — but please ground it in evidence, not emotion. My hope is to map what is really driving this backlash: whether it is fear, misinformation, ideology, or something else entirely." If you're trans, then your experience will differ from non trans people's quite widely. Your personal experience will bias your view, just as any subject that affects me would be biased by my experience. More broadly, the world is more polarised now than it used to be. The harder any 'side' pushes, the more extreme the reaction. In reality, the majority of people don't have an issues with other people having a different lifestyle than they do. Much of that same majority don't like being told what to think or say, but if left to their own cognisance would behave politely and rationally. If a lot of the evolution of society and individuals was not pressed to the front of everyone's consciousness by so much media, I think there'd be a surprising level of reasonable responses. Just my personal opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trans people have always existed in society. Have they or is that just modern medical technology. Of course they have always been gay or lesbian…Trans? The sudden hostility toward trans people, I think, largely comes from social media. It amplifies anything extreme, and people quickly share and spread it. It’s not so different from darker periods in human history, when crowds gathered to witness cruelty or suffering, just now it happens online instead of in person. Social media is incredibly divisive because everyone has an opinion and can hide behind anonymity. That combination often fuels misunderstanding and hostility instead of empathy and dialogue. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You said in your opening post that "people are entitled to their feelings. What I am trying to understand is why those feelings run so deep for some" and "understanding is how bridges are built" and "My hope is to map what is really driving this backlash". So far all you've done in this thread is tell people that they're wrong, and that their feelings and opinions don't matter. You're not going to learn anything if you can't listen." What I actually asked for were data-driven, verifiable facts to help me understand why people see this differently. I’ve been open from the start that I’m likely to disagree, but disagreement isn’t the same as dismissal. For the most part I haven’t told anyone they’re wrong — I’ve asked questions about how they reached their view, and clarified when claims didn’t match the evidence. I’m also autistic, which means I naturally place extra weight on verifiable data. That’s why I ask for sources — not to score points, but because feelings-based arguments don’t stack up logically in my head the same way. If someone can explain their reasoning with evidence, I’m genuinely interested. That’s the whole point of the thread — understanding through evidence, not just opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're trans, then your experience will differ from non trans people's quite widely. Your personal experience will bias your view, just as any subject that affects me would be biased by my experience. More broadly, the world is more polarised now than it used to be. The harder any 'side' pushes, the more extreme the reaction. In reality, the majority of people don't have an issues with other people having a different lifestyle than they do. Much of that same majority don't like being told what to think or say, but if left to their own cognisance would behave politely and rationally. If a lot of the evolution of society and individuals was not pressed to the front of everyone's consciousness by so much media, I think there'd be a surprising level of reasonable responses. Just my personal opinion. " I can’t say I disagree — my own lived experience largely backs that up. That’s why the whole culture-war vitriol still surprises me. I don’t see “my side” as trying to tell people what to think or do, but rather as pushing back against a tide of narratives that deny our lived reality. You’re right that this may be a biased perception; experience always shapes perspective. Still, the available data tend to support it — recorded hate incidents are up, negative press coverage has increased, and public polling shows a measurable shift toward the view that trans rights have “gone too far.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That’s why the whole culture-war vitriol still surprises me. I don’t see “my side” as trying to tell people what to think or do " Isn't that exactly what you are doing with the language? Your multiple threads where you tell other people what the words women and cis-woman must mean is you telling other people what they must think or do. " but rather as pushing back against a tide of narratives that deny our lived reality. " Here lies the problem. Your "lived reality" is private. No one can access to your mind. And for that reason, the trans issue will never be solved, unless neurologists find a device to read minds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're trans, then your experience will differ from non trans people's quite widely. Your personal experience will bias your view, just as any subject that affects me would be biased by my experience. More broadly, the world is more polarised now than it used to be. The harder any 'side' pushes, the more extreme the reaction. In reality, the majority of people don't have an issues with other people having a different lifestyle than they do. Much of that same majority don't like being told what to think or say, but if left to their own cognisance would behave politely and rationally. If a lot of the evolution of society and individuals was not pressed to the front of everyone's consciousness by so much media, I think there'd be a surprising level of reasonable responses. Just my personal opinion. I can’t say I disagree — my own lived experience largely backs that up. That’s why the whole culture-war vitriol still surprises me. I don’t see “my side” as trying to tell people what to think or do, but rather as pushing back against a tide of narratives that deny our lived reality. You’re right that this may be a biased perception; experience always shapes perspective. Still, the available data tend to support it — recorded hate incidents are up, negative press coverage has increased, and public polling shows a measurable shift toward the view that trans rights have “gone too far.”" And this is where perspective comes in. Available data regarding hate crimes, Inc trans tagged incidents is hugely skewed from 5 yrs ago. In this period the number of options for specifying the type of hate in a police complaint has gone from 5 to over 20, driving more individual recorded cases for some demographics. Press coverage depends on the outlet and the perceived prevailing 'mood' of the majority. Across the media I see, the coverage has become more neutral and less pro trans. The number of polls showing opinions about trans rights having gone too far will partly be in response to the previous swing the other way. I'd also be interested to see the wording of the polls as they are usually designed to be polarising in language to generate an identified preference. In any social or cultural movement , the more visible it is, the more it will polarise opinion. In regard to misgendering, I'd be pretty annoyed if it became law that I had to address anyone by a specified set of pronouns. If I met a trans person and they requested I use a specific pronoun, I'd be happy to, as a matter of courtesy. The moment your society is telling you how you must behave, you're on a slippery slope. As a side note, permanent change in society isn't usually driven by governments, or the media. It's driven by individuals acting the right way, and outweighing individuals acting the wrong way. For me, it doesn't matter what the media/gov says, it matters how the people and organisations I encounter interact with me. In any change like this, there will always be people on both sides who need to shout louder and be more extreme to feel relevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a side note, permanent change in society isn't usually driven by governments, or the media. It's driven by individuals acting the right way, and outweighing individuals acting the wrong way. "
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a rant or a trap question. I want to understand the reasoning behind what feels like a sharp rise in anti-trans sentiment. I am a trans woman, and over the past few years I have seen attitudes harden — in politics, in the media, and even in day-to-day conversation. I am not asking why some people disagree with aspects of gender policy. Disagreement is normal in any democracy. I am asking why simple existence now provokes such visceral anger. Trans people have always existed in society. The main difference between fifty years ago and today is visibility. The existence, behaviour, and law have remained largely consistent — apart from major legal steps such as the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. Yet it is only in the past decade that our existence has been treated as a social problem. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there is only one anti-trans argument that actually survives scrutiny: “I just don’t like it.” That is not evidence, just emotion — and people are entitled to their feelings. What I am trying to understand is why those feelings run so deep for some. I am unlikely to agree with most of what is said here, but understanding is how bridges are built. If you think trans people existing or being visible causes harm, please explain what that harm is and what evidence supports it. A few boundaries for this discussion: – Stick to verifiable facts — law, data, or direct observation. – No hypotheticals unless you can show they have actually happened. – Keep tone civil. This is about tracing the logic, not trading insults. If you think I am missing a major factor, raise it — but please ground it in evidence, not emotion. My hope is to map what is really driving this backlash: whether it is fear, misinformation, ideology, or something else entirely." You started this. Honest reply: For the vast majority of the population it's something that doesn't affect us, without wanting to sound horrible we have far more important things to worry about, paying bills, worried about potentially global wars, health and social issues, migrants, cost of living and so on.... So the reality is most don't interact with or know any trans people, on here we have more of an interaction due to the lifestyle we have all chosen but for the vast majority of the population all they see and experience is a tiny small percentage of the population dictate what we should all be expected to say and think and confused with it all, constantly walking on eggshells for fear of being called transphobic just because of accidental misuse of a describing word. So yeah it makes people angry. From your side: It's your life you live 24/7 and your existence revolves around being Trans and living the life you have chosen and unless you move in circles with other Trans people you're probably feeling alone and disconnected to most others ( I am guessing purely based on your posts) that you feel angry that nobody understands. The problem is people don't want to be dictated to we live in a time of a growing hate for the establishment since lockdown the feelings of mistrust towards being told what to do has been building and building, add the trans movement dictating their own issues into this and it's a recipe for disagreement. Just look at the media and in general the division's in society have never been greater people are fed up. So I guess maybe the whole Trans situation is an easier target for some to vent at. But mostly people aren't doing it from hatred it's more frustration. Now here is another problem: Any discussion we have yourself as a great example always ends the same, people giving opinions and if you don't agree you start throwing fact's and own experience to change others opinions, not willing to listen then accusing people of hatred. We are all different and I wouldn't expect you to understand my life more than I understand yours. You unfortunately don't seem toget the difference between the forum and real life it should be a discussion with people free to give their opinions. And it causes you anger and distress if you don't like that others have opposed opinions perhaps the forum is not for you?? I don't hate Trans people anymore than I hate anyone else I judge people on an individual basis but it's very difficult to enter a dialogue with people who are not willing to listen to others and all they want is for everyone to see it their way. In short brutal truth: People just don't want to be told how to think and mostly don't give a toss. I'm more worried about violence and antisocial behaviour in today's world. Reading a lot of your recent posts perhaps you should take a break as it's clearly bothering you, this is something myself and many others have done because it can overwhelm and start to feel very personal. If you are getting threats then follow the sites guidelines and report issues from individuals. I wish you well but I will not be entering any further discussion not out of hatred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a rant or a trap question. I want to understand the reasoning behind what feels like a sharp rise in anti-trans sentiment. I am a trans woman, and over the past few years I have seen attitudes harden — in politics, in the media, and even in day-to-day conversation. I am not asking why some people disagree with aspects of gender policy. Disagreement is normal in any democracy. I am asking why simple existence now provokes such visceral anger. Trans people have always existed in society. The main difference between fifty years ago and today is visibility. The existence, behaviour, and law have remained largely consistent — apart from major legal steps such as the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. Yet it is only in the past decade that our existence has been treated as a social problem. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there is only one anti-trans argument that actually survives scrutiny: “I just don’t like it.” That is not evidence, just emotion — and people are entitled to their feelings. What I am trying to understand is why those feelings run so deep for some. I am unlikely to agree with most of what is said here, but understanding is how bridges are built. If you think trans people existing or being visible causes harm, please explain what that harm is and what evidence supports it. A few boundaries for this discussion: – Stick to verifiable facts — law, data, or direct observation. – No hypotheticals unless you can show they have actually happened. – Keep tone civil. This is about tracing the logic, not trading insults. If you think I am missing a major factor, raise it — but please ground it in evidence, not emotion. My hope is to map what is really driving this backlash: whether it is fear, misinformation, ideology, or something else entirely. You started this. Honest reply: For the vast majority of the population it's something that doesn't affect us, without wanting to sound horrible we have far more important things to worry about, paying bills, worried about potentially global wars, health and social issues, migrants, cost of living and so on.... So the reality is most don't interact with or know any trans people, on here we have more of an interaction due to the lifestyle we have all chosen but for the vast majority of the population all they see and experience is a tiny small percentage of the population dictate what we should all be expected to say and think and confused with it all, constantly walking on eggshells for fear of being called transphobic just because of accidental misuse of a describing word. So yeah it makes people angry. From your side: It's your life you live 24/7 and your existence revolves around being Trans and living the life you have chosen and unless you move in circles with other Trans people you're probably feeling alone and disconnected to most others ( I am guessing purely based on your posts) that you feel angry that nobody understands. The problem is people don't want to be dictated to we live in a time of a growing hate for the establishment since lockdown the feelings of mistrust towards being told what to do has been building and building, add the trans movement dictating their own issues into this and it's a recipe for disagreement. Just look at the media and in general the division's in society have never been greater people are fed up. So I guess maybe the whole Trans situation is an easier target for some to vent at. But mostly people aren't doing it from hatred it's more frustration. Now here is another problem: Any discussion we have yourself as a great example always ends the same, people giving opinions and if you don't agree you start throwing fact's and own experience to change others opinions, not willing to listen then accusing people of hatred. We are all different and I wouldn't expect you to understand my life more than I understand yours. You unfortunately don't seem toget the difference between the forum and real life it should be a discussion with people free to give their opinions. And it causes you anger and distress if you don't like that others have opposed opinions perhaps the forum is not for you?? I don't hate Trans people anymore than I hate anyone else I judge people on an individual basis but it's very difficult to enter a dialogue with people who are not willing to listen to others and all they want is for everyone to see it their way. In short brutal truth: People just don't want to be told how to think and mostly don't give a toss. I'm more worried about violence and antisocial behaviour in today's world. Reading a lot of your recent posts perhaps you should take a break as it's clearly bothering you, this is something myself and many others have done because it can overwhelm and start to feel very personal. If you are getting threats then follow the sites guidelines and report issues from individuals. I wish you well but I will not be entering any further discussion not out of hatred. " This x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ... But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before? " There's a difference between a hate incident and a hate crime. A hate incident - a non crime incident where there is prejudice towards someone who the perpetrator believes to or does belong to one of the 5 protected characteristics. A hate crime - a crime has been committed which has been motivated by prejudice towards one of the five protected characteristics. So, if the data shows hate CRIMES have increased, a crime has been committed that was proven to be motivated by prejudice. Hate incidents are not recorded as crimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't that exactly what you are doing with the language? Your multiple threads where you tell other people what the words women and cis-woman must mean is you telling other people what they must think or do." But that’s not what I’ve done here. In my opening post I explicitly asked people to present data-driven arguments so I could understand the reasoning behind their views. So far, no one has. What I keep getting instead are feelings framed as facts. And the only anti-trans argument I’ve seen that actually withstands scrutiny is, “I just don’t like it.” That’s not contempt; it’s observation. When I say things don’t align, that’s what I mean — the claims and the evidence don’t match. As for “lived reality,” calling it private doesn’t make it irrelevant. Every social or legal protection — from disability access to maternity rights — is grounded in lived realities that others may not personally experience. Trans existence is no different: it’s documented, studied, and legislated for. The law doesn’t need to read minds to recognise that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't that exactly what you are doing with the language? Your multiple threads where you tell other people what the words women and cis-woman must mean is you telling other people what they must think or do. But that’s not what I’ve done here. In my opening post I explicitly asked people to present data-driven arguments so I could understand the reasoning behind their views. So far, no one has. What I keep getting instead are feelings framed as facts. " You are talking about human language. You are arguing about which word to mean what. There is no data driven decision here. The society decides which word is convenient to use. " And the only anti-trans argument I’ve seen that actually withstands scrutiny is, “I just don’t like it.” That’s not contempt; it’s observation. When I say things don’t align, that’s what I mean — the claims and the evidence don’t match. " That's a blatant reductionism of the arguments people have made. If you are going to close your eyes and blatantly ignore all the arguments that have been made on this topic, don't expect others to respect your arguments either. " As for “lived reality,” calling it private doesn’t make it irrelevant. Every social or legal protection — from disability access to maternity rights — is grounded in lived realities that others may not personally experience. Trans existence is no different: it’s documented, studied, and legislated for. The law doesn’t need to read minds to recognise that." It is different. Physical disabilities, maternity are all things which people can see and confirm. With the trans issues, you are asking people to change the way they behave based on your words without anyway to physically verify the "lived experience" you are talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But that’s not what I’ve done here. In my opening post I explicitly asked people to present data-driven arguments so I could understand the reasoning behind their views. " That's not how sentiment works. Many people have been screaming how and why at you, but you aren't really listening to them. You're attempting to refute them, then telling them "that's not facts", then complain that you don't understand. Perhaps if you invest a little time in opening your mind and attempting empathy and putting yourself in the shoes of others, you'd get what people are trying to tell you. That doesn't make them right or mean that you have to agree, but if you genuinely want to understand... Listen. Switch off combat mode. (Hint: combat mode is one of the things that shifts people's position from "confused neutral" to "offended and against".) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And this is where perspective comes in. Available data regarding hate crimes, Inc trans tagged incidents is hugely skewed from 5 yrs ago. In this period the number of options for specifying the type of hate in a police complaint has gone from 5 to over 20, driving more individual recorded cases for some demographics. Press coverage depends on the outlet and the perceived prevailing 'mood' of the majority. Across the media I see, the coverage has become more neutral and less pro trans. The number of polls showing opinions about trans rights having gone too far will partly be in response to the previous swing the other way. I'd also be interested to see the wording of the polls as they are usually designed to be polarising in language to generate an identified preference. In any social or cultural movement , the more visible it is, the more it will polarise opinion. In regard to misgendering, I'd be pretty annoyed if it became law that I had to address anyone by a specified set of pronouns. If I met a trans person and they requested I use a specific pronoun, I'd be happy to, as a matter of courtesy. The moment your society is telling you how you must behave, you're on a slippery slope. As a side note, permanent change in society isn't usually driven by governments, or the media. It's driven by individuals acting the right way, and outweighing individuals acting the wrong way. For me, it doesn't matter what the media/gov says, it matters how the people and organisations I encounter interact with me. In any change like this, there will always be people on both sides who need to shout louder and be more extreme to feel relevant. " I can see an element of truth in what you’re saying about reporting changes — but there’s more to it. A case only receives the hate crime label if police consider it to meet that threshold, and in practice many incidents get downgraded to other offences. I can’t speak for every force, but I know for certain that happens within East Sussex Police. So while improved reporting plays a role, it doesn’t explain the full increase. As for the media, I agree that tone depends on outlet and perceived audience mood. But that’s exactly the problem — coverage has shifted to reflect and reinforce a negative public narrative. Studies show the number of trans-related stories has risen sharply, while the framing has grown more critical. Maybe I notice it more keenly as a trans person, but the sheer volume and tone are hard to ignore. And to be clear, no trans person I know has ever argued that pronoun use should be legally enforced. What most of us ask for is what you described — a little courtesy. Listening and treating others respectfully shouldn’t need to be legislated. Finally, I agree that visibility polarises. But social norms aren’t automatically right just because they’re common. The way trans people are treated now mirrors how gay men were vilified during the AIDS crisis — and most people today recognise that was unjust. The hope is we learn from that history rather than repeat it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You started this. Honest reply: For the vast majority of the population it's something that doesn't affect us, without wanting to sound horrible we have far more important things to worry about, paying bills, worried about potentially global wars, health and social issues, migrants, cost of living and so on.... So the reality is most don't interact with or know any trans people, on here we have more of an interaction due to the lifestyle we have all chosen but for the vast majority of the population all they see and experience is a tiny small percentage of the population dictate what we should all be expected to say and think and confused with it all, constantly walking on eggshells for fear of being called transphobic just because of accidental misuse of a describing word. So yeah it makes people angry. From your side: It's your life you live 24/7 and your existence revolves around being Trans and living the life you have chosen and unless you move in circles with other Trans people you're probably feeling alone and disconnected to most others ( I am guessing purely based on your posts) that you feel angry that nobody understands. The problem is people don't want to be dictated to we live in a time of a growing hate for the establishment since lockdown the feelings of mistrust towards being told what to do has been building and building, add the trans movement dictating their own issues into this and it's a recipe for disagreement. Just look at the media and in general the division's in society have never been greater people are fed up. So I guess maybe the whole Trans situation is an easier target for some to vent at. But mostly people aren't doing it from hatred it's more frustration. Now here is another problem: Any discussion we have yourself as a great example always ends the same, people giving opinions and if you don't agree you start throwing fact's and own experience to change others opinions, not willing to listen then accusing people of hatred. We are all different and I wouldn't expect you to understand my life more than I understand yours. You unfortunately don't seem toget the difference between the forum and real life it should be a discussion with people free to give their opinions. And it causes you anger and distress if you don't like that others have opposed opinions perhaps the forum is not for you?? I don't hate Trans people anymore than I hate anyone else I judge people on an individual basis but it's very difficult to enter a dialogue with people who are not willing to listen to others and all they want is for everyone to see it their way. In short brutal truth: People just don't want to be told how to think and mostly don't give a toss. I'm more worried about violence and antisocial behaviour in today's world. Reading a lot of your recent posts perhaps you should take a break as it's clearly bothering you, this is something myself and many others have done because it can overwhelm and start to feel very personal. If you are getting threats then follow the sites guidelines and report issues from individuals. I wish you well but I will not be entering any further discussion not out of hatred. " I actually agree with part of that — most people genuinely aren’t focused on trans issues, and I’ve said the same myself. My point has never been that the majority are anti-trans, but that the volume and intensity of anti-trans rhetoric have increased, largely from the small but organised gender-critical movement, certain politicians, and parts of the media who benefit from a culture war. What I’ve been asking for are data-driven arguments to explain why attitudes have hardened. That’s not dictating what anyone should think — it’s the essence of discussion. Debate means presenting facts, questioning claims, and testing logic. That’s what I’ve been doing. I’m not angry at disagreement; I’m frustrated that most replies haven’t engaged with evidence. My autism means I naturally look for verifiable data — feelings-based explanations just don’t add up for me unless they connect to something measurable. And I haven’t accused anyone here of hatred. I’ve tried to understand why, in some parts of society, hostility has grown — not why individuals here feel a certain way. I’m here to talk about patterns, not people. If others feel overwhelmed by the topic, that’s fine — they can take a break. But engaging analytically with evidence isn’t hostility; it’s participation. I appreciate your input. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Social Media. Not helped by twats who describe themselves as getting a lady boner for using the ladies. Or priding themselves on invading each others events. Friendly reminder most trans and society in general just want to get on with their lives as best they can. I have what would be considered a phobic opinion on trans. By that I do not believe they are the opposite of what they were born as. But I believe they deserve the same rights as me and I certainly wouldn’t go out of my way to make them feel bad consciously. " I welcome your thoughts here, and I agree that in every group there are bad actors. I’ve condemned inappropriate behaviour within my own community before — no one should get a free pass for crossing boundaries. But one of the big differences in how society reacts is that, for most groups, we don’t judge the whole by the worst examples. Yet for certain minorities — trans people, immigrants, and others — that’s still common practice. The actions of a few are used to justify suspicion of everyone, and that double standard is part of what keeps the hostility alive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think much stems from the USA, where politicians and the media stoked fear and anger, starting a good few years back. Local states then implemented a lot of trans restrictions and legislation, that restricted rights and freedoms. It seemed to bleed into the UK, with many of the untruths getting repeated here, such as about dangerous situations in toilet use " I’d need to dig into the data again to give exact sources, which I’m happy to do if anyone wants them. But I remember reading an analysis that matched almost exactly what you’re describing. Far-right Christian nationalist groups in the US initially tried to weaponise transphobia but didn’t get much traction. When they saw the gender-critical movement gaining ground in the UK, several began funnelling money and strategy support here — effectively treating Britain as a test case to learn which narratives resonated. Once they’d gathered that data, they scaled it back up in the US, this time with far greater success. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is different. Physical disabilities, maternity are all things which people can see and confirm. With the trans issues, you are asking people to change the way they behave based on your words without anyway to physically verify the "lived experience" you are talking about." Language isn’t arbitrary whim; it evolves to describe reality more accurately. Terms like trans woman and natal female woman exist because they clarify meaning in law, medicine, and social policy — not because anyone decreed them by force. Society doesn’t decide words by convenience; it refines them through evidence and usage. That’s why we use medical terms instead of folk ones and legal definitions instead of slang. As for reductionism — I’ve been asking for specific, evidence-based explanations since the start. If any have been offered beyond personal discomfort, I’m happy to revisit them. So far, no one has shown verifiable data contradicting what I’ve said. And your distinction about “visible” realities doesn’t hold up either. Plenty of protected characteristics — sexuality, religion, even some disabilities — aren’t outwardly visible. Yet the law still recognises and protects them because lived experience doesn’t need to be visible to be valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not how sentiment works. Many people have been screaming how and why at you, but you aren't really listening to them. You're attempting to refute them, then telling them "that's not facts", then complain that you don't understand. Perhaps if you invest a little time in opening your mind and attempting empathy and putting yourself in the shoes of others, you'd get what people are trying to tell you. That doesn't make them right or mean that you have to agree, but if you genuinely want to understand... Listen. Switch off combat mode. (Hint: combat mode is one of the things that shifts people's position from "confused neutral" to "offended and against".)" I haven’t been in “combat mode” at all — I’ve been asking for verifiable information so I can understand claims properly. It’s quite common for autistic people to be perceived as combative when we’re simply being direct or analytical. I’m not dismissing anyone’s feelings; I’m just trying to see whether they’re supported by data. I’m not blanket-disregarding what people say — I’m looking for evidence. When someone makes a claim that contradicts the data I already know, I want to look at what supports their assertion. I’m not comfortable living life by vibes alone; I prefer facts to guide understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Available data regarding hate crimes, Inc trans tagged incidents is hugely skewed from 5 yrs ago. In this period the number of options for specifying the type of hate in a police complaint has gone from 5 to over 20, driving more individual recorded cases for some demographics. " There are only 5 protected characteristics in law. These are the ones that receive an uplift in sentencing if found guilty at court. Police forces may be recording which groups in society are being targeted bh using other qualifiers, but for cases that go to court, there are only 5 characteristics which meet the hate crime criteria. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Language isn’t arbitrary whim; it evolves to describe reality more accurately. Terms like trans woman and natal female woman exist because they clarify meaning in law, medicine, and social policy — not because anyone decreed them by force. " Two different sets of languages can achieve same set of clarity. I have explained this before. You can use trans women, women(for biological women), trans women + women(we can even find a new word for this). Or you can use the trans women, cis women, women. Both options give the same level of clarity. You are pushing for the second option which changes the way people have been using the words for centuries. It's not a data driven decision. " Society doesn’t decide words by convenience; it refines them through evidence and usage. That’s why we use medical terms instead of folk ones and legal definitions instead of slang. " People don't usually give a fuck about medical definitions in their day to day communications. " As for reductionism — I’ve been asking for specific, evidence-based explanations since the start. If any have been offered beyond personal discomfort, I’m happy to revisit them. So far, no one has shown verifiable data contradicting what I’ve said. " There is no data driven argument for language. It's a social phenomenon. The city "Chennai" in India used to be called "Madras". Politicians changed it to move away from the English name. It has been 3 decades since it was changed. Guess what? Lots of people still use "Madras". It will take a couple of generations for the old name to completely go away. You can wave around the ECHR or whatever legal document as you want. But if people aren't willing to change the language, they won't. " And your distinction about “visible” realities doesn’t hold up either. Plenty of protected characteristics — sexuality, religion, even some disabilities — aren’t outwardly visible. Yet the law still recognises and protects them because lived experience doesn’t need to be visible to be valid." For protected characteristics, people aren't expecting others to change their language. You are expecting others to change their language. No one is obligated to do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ... But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before?" "There's a difference between a hate incident and a hate crime. A hate incident - a non crime incident where there is prejudice towards someone who the perpetrator believes to or does belong to one of the 5 protected characteristics. A hate crime - a crime has been committed which has been motivated by prejudice towards one of the five protected characteristics. So, if the data shows hate CRIMES have increased, a crime has been committed that was proven to be motivated by prejudice. Hate incidents are not recorded as crimes." I agree with everything you say. But the post I was quoting said "Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled ...". Notice the word "reports". The only way to count a genuine hate crime is if a court decides that a hate crime was committed. If the level of convictions for trans motivated hate crimes has increased relative to the number of trans people in existence, then I'll agree that trans hatred is becoming more prevalent. But if all we're saying is that reports have increased, then there could be several explanations for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two different sets of languages can achieve same set of clarity. I have explained this before. You can use trans women, women(for biological women), trans women + women(we can even find a new word for this). Or you can use the trans women, cis women, women. Both options give the same level of clarity. You are pushing for the second option which changes the way people have been using the words for centuries. It's not a data driven decision." You’re right that language is social — but that’s exactly why clarity matters. The problem with the “previous standard” is that woman and man have carried two competing meanings for decades: one tied to natal sex, the other to gender. That ambiguity creates confusion in law, policy, and public debate. The adjectives — trans, natal female, cis — exist to resolve that confusion, not to police thought. They make it possible to speak clearly to both groups at once. Keeping language “the way it’s always been” hasn’t worked, because the old terms already mean different things to different people. And no one’s forcing anyone to speak a certain way. The goal isn’t to control language — it’s to make sure it’s consistently understood. People adapt language all the time when clarity or respect requires it. That’s not coercion; it’s just how communication evolves. How do you propose we fix the confusion while sticking to the traditional way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on the replies here, you are asking for verifiable facts for something that doesn't exist 🤷♂️ Nobody has said they "just don't like it" It seems the statistics represent feeling of trans people that are just that "feelings" " That’s precisely how it feels — but it’s still hard to stomach the idea of legislating against a group based purely on feelings. Isn’t that the very definition of discrimination? If we start making policy on emotional discomfort rather than evidence of harm, we’re not protecting anyone — we’re just codifying prejudice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Language isn’t arbitrary whim; it evolves to describe reality more accurately. Terms like trans woman and natal female woman exist because they clarify meaning in law, medicine, and social policy — not because anyone decreed them by force. Two different sets of languages can achieve same set of clarity. I have explained this before. You can use trans women, women(for biological women), trans women + women(we can even find a new word for this). Or you can use the trans women, cis women, women. Both options give the same level of clarity. You are pushing for the second option which changes the way people have been using the words for centuries. It's not a data driven decision. Society doesn’t decide words by convenience; it refines them through evidence and usage. That’s why we use medical terms instead of folk ones and legal definitions instead of slang. People don't usually give a fuck about medical definitions in their day to day communications. As for reductionism — I’ve been asking for specific, evidence-based explanations since the start. If any have been offered beyond personal discomfort, I’m happy to revisit them. So far, no one has shown verifiable data contradicting what I’ve said. There is no data driven argument for language. It's a social phenomenon. The city "Chennai" in India used to be called "Madras". Politicians changed it to move away from the English name. It has been 3 decades since it was changed. Guess what? Lots of people still use "Madras". It will take a couple of generations for the old name to completely go away. You can wave around the ECHR or whatever legal document as you want. But if people aren't willing to change the language, they won't. And your distinction about “visible” realities doesn’t hold up either. Plenty of protected characteristics — sexuality, religion, even some disabilities — aren’t outwardly visible. Yet the law still recognises and protects them because lived experience doesn’t need to be visible to be valid. For protected characteristics, people aren't expecting others to change their language. You are expecting others to change their language. No one is obligated to do so. " Having a belief is a protected characteristic. So anyone not agreeing with you is also protected under the Equality Act. Even those that do not agree with the Gender Identity/Affirmation Theory you agree with, even if the follow Gender Critical Theory, and dont believe Trans woman are woman. However whenever someone states something along these lines you immediately accuse them of using ideology. However you cannot seem to see that everything you say is ideologically based too. You say you are looking for evidence based arguments but you arent. This is evidenced by the number of threads you start on this issue, where you constantly refuse all the data people provide for you to support their claims. You're constantly telling people that they are wrong. Even when they give direct quotes, from you, to back up what they are saying. You are not looking for discussion or debate. You certainly are not looking for evidence. All you seem to be looking for is affirmation about your views and your ideology. How many strangers does it take to tell you, on a single thread, that this is the pattern of behaviour you are exhibiting before you think is it me? It is.... Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two different sets of languages can achieve same set of clarity. I have explained this before. You can use trans women, women(for biological women), trans women + women(we can even find a new word for this). Or you can use the trans women, cis women, women. Both options give the same level of clarity. You are pushing for the second option which changes the way people have been using the words for centuries. It's not a data driven decision. You’re right that language is social — but that’s exactly why clarity matters. The problem with the “previous standard” is that woman and man have carried two competing meanings for decades: one tied to natal sex, the other to gender. That ambiguity creates confusion in law, policy, and public debate. The adjectives — trans, natal female, cis — exist to resolve that confusion, not to police thought. They make it possible to speak clearly to both groups at once. Keeping language “the way it’s always been” hasn’t worked, because the old terms already mean different things to different people. And no one’s forcing anyone to speak a certain way. The goal isn’t to control language — it’s to make sure it’s consistently understood. People adapt language all the time when clarity or respect requires it. That’s not coercion; it’s just how communication evolves. How do you propose we fix the confusion while sticking to the traditional way?" What you've said is that the majority have to change their language to suit a minority. Can't you see how that would immediately cause alienation? In a case above someone said they were offended by your use of the adjective CIS to describe them yet you continued to do so ? Personally I find sexuality and gender like religion, I don't care what opinion or beliefs others have until they start to shove them down my throat then I'll give them mine. It seems like it might be an idea to have a chat with someone face to face about your insecurities rather than discussing them on a public forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The adjectives — trans, natal female, cis — exist to resolve that confusion, not to police thought. " The other option I mentioned also resolves the confusion. " They make it possible to speak clearly to both groups at once. " You can invent a new word to speak clearly to both groups at once instead of repurposing "women" to mean both. Trans people account for less than 1% of the population. You are asking the entire population to change the meaning of the words man and woman for your convenience. There is no easy way to do that. ECHR and a bunch of medical papers aren't going to change people's language just like that. " Keeping language “the way it’s always been” hasn’t worked, because the old terms already mean different things to different people. " It meant different things only to trans people and a very few people who have been reading about the gender theory. For most other people, it didn't mean different things. " And no one’s forcing anyone to speak a certain way. The goal isn’t to control language — it’s to make sure it’s consistently understood. " If you don't really want to control it, let people use whatever words they prefer. If they aren't confused, why does it bother you? " People adapt language all the time when clarity or respect requires it. That’s not coercion; it’s just how communication evolves. " If that's how the communication evolves, let it evolve. Why throw tantrums about it all the time? " How do you propose we fix the confusion while sticking to the traditional way?" Let "women" mean biological sex. Introduce a new word to address the group of women + trans women. Adding trans women along with women, is a new phenomenon and it warrants a new word for it, rather than trying to repurpose an existing word that's so frequently used in day to day communications. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having a belief is a protected characteristic. So anyone not agreeing with you is also protected under the Equality Act. Even those that do not agree with the Gender Identity/Affirmation Theory you agree with, even if the follow Gender Critical Theory, and dont believe Trans woman are woman. However whenever someone states something along these lines you immediately accuse them of using ideology. However you cannot seem to see that everything you say is ideologically based too. You say you are looking for evidence based arguments but you arent. This is evidenced by the number of threads you start on this issue, where you constantly refuse all the data people provide for you to support their claims. You're constantly telling people that they are wrong. Even when they give direct quotes, from you, to back up what they are saying. You are not looking for discussion or debate. You certainly are not looking for evidence. All you seem to be looking for is affirmation about your views and your ideology. How many strangers does it take to tell you, on a single thread, that this is the pattern of behaviour you are exhibiting before you think is it me? It is.... Mrs x" Well, that’s quite a reinterpretation of what I’ve actually said. 1. On ideology: An ideological position is one held despite contradictory evidence. I’ve been explicit that if anyone provides verifiable data supporting their stance — data I can’t refute — I’ll accept that mine may be ideological. Likewise, if someone can refute my evidence, I’ll change my view. That’s the opposite of dogma; that’s falsifiability. 2. On motive: You don’t know my motives, and I haven’t claimed to know yours. I enjoy discussing topics that matter to me, gathering information, and testing its validity. Nothing I’ve written falls outside that description. If disagreement with unsupported claims reads as hostility, that says more about expectation than intent. Take religion as an example. Everyone agrees people are entitled to their faith and free to practise it. But we don’t demonise those who question that faith — especially when they do so using evidence or logic. Debate and analysis don’t threaten belief; they clarify its limits. You’re free to hold a belief, and that belief is indeed protected. But protection doesn’t make it correct, and it doesn’t place it beyond scrutiny. Belief and evidence occupy different categories — one is a right, the other is a method. I’m working with the latter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two different sets of languages can achieve same set of clarity. I have explained this before. You can use trans women, women(for biological women), trans women + women(we can even find a new word for this). Or you can use the trans women, cis women, women. Both options give the same level of clarity. You are pushing for the second option which changes the way people have been using the words for centuries. It's not a data driven decision. You’re right that language is social — but that’s exactly why clarity matters. The problem with the “previous standard” is that woman and man have carried two competing meanings for decades: one tied to natal sex, the other to gender. That ambiguity creates confusion in law, policy, and public debate. The adjectives — trans, natal female, cis — exist to resolve that confusion, not to police thought. They make it possible to speak clearly to both groups at once. Keeping language “the way it’s always been” hasn’t worked, because the old terms already mean different things to different people. And no one’s forcing anyone to speak a certain way. The goal isn’t to control language — it’s to make sure it’s consistently understood. People adapt language all the time when clarity or respect requires it. That’s not coercion; it’s just how communication evolves. How do you propose we fix the confusion while sticking to the traditional way?" The adjective Cis was used by a PHd student so as not to hurt the feelings of Trans people because the terms men and woman seemed to exclude them from the rest of humanity in their eyes, because they didnt need any adjective before their title. It wasn't because the language doesn't work, it does, its just to save the feelings of the group not include by the terms man or woman. And before you tell me I'm talking bull shit, thats what the author actually stated in a letter not so long ago, along with the fact she didn't think the term Cis would gain any traction. Quick question. If the term woman is not clear, needs clarification, how come those transitioning from a man into a Trans woman, all appear to do so changing their appearance to what seems to be an objective female standard? How can this happen if its so hard to understand what a woman is with prefixing it with a redundant adjective. Anyone know how this has happened? Because until 10 years ago, those following your ideology would have us all believe it was almost impossible to know what a woman was... very strange that. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What you've said is that the majority have to change their language to suit a minority. Can't you see how that would immediately cause alienation? In a case above someone said they were offended by your use of the adjective CIS to describe them yet you continued to do so ? Personally I find sexuality and gender like religion, I don't care what opinion or beliefs others have until they start to shove them down my throat then I'll give them mine. It seems like it might be an idea to have a chat with someone face to face about your insecurities rather than discussing them on a public forum." As far as I remember, I haven’t once called any individual cis directly; I’ve only used the term when referring to groups, because that’s the correct descriptive contrast to trans. If I have specifically addressed someone that way after they said they found it uncomfortable, then I do apologise — that was never my intent. My goal has been to keep the discussion clear, not personal. The reason I use words like trans woman and natal female woman is to remove ambiguity, not to demand anyone change how they speak in private. Public discussion benefits from clarity. That’s not about forcing change; it’s about making sure everyone in the conversation knows exactly what’s being said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having a belief is a protected characteristic. So anyone not agreeing with you is also protected under the Equality Act. Even those that do not agree with the Gender Identity/Affirmation Theory you agree with, even if the follow Gender Critical Theory, and dont believe Trans woman are woman. However whenever someone states something along these lines you immediately accuse them of using ideology. However you cannot seem to see that everything you say is ideologically based too. You say you are looking for evidence based arguments but you arent. This is evidenced by the number of threads you start on this issue, where you constantly refuse all the data people provide for you to support their claims. You're constantly telling people that they are wrong. Even when they give direct quotes, from you, to back up what they are saying. You are not looking for discussion or debate. You certainly are not looking for evidence. All you seem to be looking for is affirmation about your views and your ideology. How many strangers does it take to tell you, on a single thread, that this is the pattern of behaviour you are exhibiting before you think is it me? It is.... Mrs x Well, that’s quite a reinterpretation of what I’ve actually said. 1. On ideology: An ideological position is one held despite contradictory evidence. I’ve been explicit that if anyone provides verifiable data supporting their stance — data I can’t refute — I’ll accept that mine may be ideological. Likewise, if someone can refute my evidence, I’ll change my view. That’s the opposite of dogma; that’s falsifiability. 2. On motive: You don’t know my motives, and I haven’t claimed to know yours. I enjoy discussing topics that matter to me, gathering information, and testing its validity. Nothing I’ve written falls outside that description. If disagreement with unsupported claims reads as hostility, that says more about expectation than intent. Take religion as an example. Everyone agrees people are entitled to their faith and free to practise it. But we don’t demonise those who question that faith — especially when they do so using evidence or logic. Debate and analysis don’t threaten belief; they clarify its limits. You’re free to hold a belief, and that belief is indeed protected. But protection doesn’t make it correct, and it doesn’t place it beyond scrutiny. Belief and evidence occupy different categories — one is a right, the other is a method. I’m working with the latter." Bit confused about what you are saying, maybe if you throw in some more redundant adjectives it might help. Are you saying you dont hold an ideological belief? Come on, dont be silly, I can't smell anything from here but I'm certain thats bullshit. And yes your beliefs are protected as much as anyone else's but like you say that doesn't make you correct. And you do want affirmation, which you dont seem to be getting and it does seem to make you angry. And others, strangers are saying it too, why would they? Self awareness not a strong suit? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The adjective Cis was used by a PHd student so as not to hurt the feelings of Trans people because the terms men and woman seemed to exclude them from the rest of humanity in their eyes, because they didnt need any adjective before their title. It wasn't because the language doesn't work, it does, its just to save the feelings of the group not include by the terms man or woman. And before you tell me I'm talking bull shit, thats what the author actually stated in a letter not so long ago, along with the fact she didn't think the term Cis would gain any traction. Quick question. If the term woman is not clear, needs clarification, how come those transitioning from a man into a Trans woman, all appear to do so changing their appearance to what seems to be an objective female standard? How can this happen if its so hard to understand what a woman is with prefixing it with a redundant adjective. Anyone know how this has happened? Because until 10 years ago, those following your ideology would have us all believe it was almost impossible to know what a woman was... very strange that. Mrs x" That’s not accurate. The term cisgender was first coined in 1991 by Carl Buijs and later popularised in academic writing by Dana Defosse in the mid-1990s — not by a PhD student trying to spare anyone’s feelings. It was introduced for linguistic balance, as a neutral counterpart to transgender. It’s also worth noting that cis isn’t meant to be used constantly or in everyday conversation. It’s used where clarity matters — for example, when distinguishing between people who identify with their natal sex and those who don’t. No one’s asking for the word to replace “man” or “woman” in ordinary use; it’s just a neutral clarifier for relevant contexts. And the idea that “most people” automatically treat woman and man as terms of sex rather than gender doesn’t hold up to data. Surveys show that public understanding is split — roughly half interpret those words by gender identity, not by biology. So your implication seems to be that everyone who isn’t trans defines “woman” purely by sex, but that’s not supported by the evidence. Finally, people who transition aren’t “imitating” a sex — that’s a reductive piece of propaganda. Transition isn’t mimicry; it’s alignment. Trans people seek to bring their bodies and presentation into harmony with their internal sense of self. That’s why it’s called gender-affirming care, not gender-appropriate care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What you've said is that the majority have to change their language to suit a minority. Can't you see how that would immediately cause alienation? In a case above someone said they were offended by your use of the adjective CIS to describe them yet you continued to do so ? Personally I find sexuality and gender like religion, I don't care what opinion or beliefs others have until they start to shove them down my throat then I'll give them mine. It seems like it might be an idea to have a chat with someone face to face about your insecurities rather than discussing them on a public forum. As far as I remember, I haven’t once called any individual cis directly; I’ve only used the term when referring to groups, because that’s the correct descriptive contrast to trans. If I have specifically addressed someone that way after they said they found it uncomfortable, then I do apologise — that was never my intent. My goal has been to keep the discussion clear, not personal. The reason I use words like trans woman and natal female woman is to remove ambiguity, not to demand anyone change how they speak in private. Public discussion benefits from clarity. That’s not about forcing change; it’s about making sure everyone in the conversation knows exactly what’s being said. " Another post, along the lines of what I've said. Looking at your behaviour on here. As for you saying "The reason I use words like trans woman and natal female woman is to remove ambiguity", thats just so untrue. There's no need for anything in front of the word woman, its a perfect description. You cannot even see the irony in what you are saying. There's no ambiguity, you literally would love to be a woman, you are undergoing treatment to make you look more like a woman objectively. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let "women" mean biological sex. Introduce a new word to address the group of women + trans women. Adding trans women along with women, is a new phenomenon and it warrants a new word for it, rather than trying to repurpose an existing word that's so frequently used in day to day communications." I’ve already addressed much of this in my last post, but I’ll make one thing clear: I’m not the one struggling with the words people use. It’s other people who are struggling with the words I use — and asking me not to use them. The irony is that I’m not trying to “repurpose” anything. I’m using woman the same way many others do: as a gendered term. That’s the standard meaning in law, medicine, and everyday life across much of the world. What’s actually new is insisting that woman must only mean natal female. That’s a linguistic narrowing, not preservation. As soon as we have a universally understood, respectful way to refer to everyone while keeping traditional clarity, I’ll happily use it. But that isn’t the language we have now. And pretending otherwise doesn’t make communication clearer — it just silences people who don’t fit the old mold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit confused about what you are saying, maybe if you throw in some more redundant adjectives it might help. Are you saying you dont hold an ideological belief? Come on, dont be silly, I can't smell anything from here but I'm certain thats bullshit. And yes your beliefs are protected as much as anyone else's but like you say that doesn't make you correct. And you do want affirmation, which you dont seem to be getting and it does seem to make you angry. And others, strangers are saying it too, why would they? Self awareness not a strong suit? Mrs x" You’re free to think what you like, but mockery isn’t an argument. My stance is supported by the same institutions society relies on for factual standards — medicine, law, and social science. That’s not ideology; that’s evidence. And I’ll let you in on a secret: I’m not looking for your affirmation, or anyone’s. I’m looking for data. My goal is to ensure my understanding rests on the most accurate and well-sourced information available. If the facts ever show I’m wrong, I’ll accept that. That’s what distinguishes evidence-based reasoning from belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another post, along the lines of what I've said. Looking at your behaviour on here. As for you saying "The reason I use words like trans woman and natal female woman is to remove ambiguity", thats just so untrue. There's no need for anything in front of the word woman, its a perfect description. You cannot even see the irony in what you are saying. There's no ambiguity, you literally would love to be a woman, you are undergoing treatment to make you look more like a woman objectively. Mrs x" As I mentioned earlier, the data simply don’t support your claim. Surveys show the public is almost evenly split — roughly half interpret “woman” as a term of sex, and half as a term of gender. Pretending that everyone shares one definition is a logical fallacy. So until someone produces a universally understood alternative that can speak clearly to both halves of that divide, I’ll continue using the language that already does. That isn’t ideology or insecurity; it’s communication based on evidence and precision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As I mentioned earlier, the data simply don’t support your claim. Surveys show the public is almost evenly split — roughly half interpret “woman” as a term of sex, and half as a term of gender. Pretending that everyone shares one definition is a logical fallacy. So until someone produces a universally understood alternative that can speak clearly to both halves of that divide, I’ll continue using the language that already does. That isn’t ideology or insecurity; it’s communication based on evidence and precision." See there you go again!! Perhaps the half that are confused are so because of people like you introducing adjectives that the don't need do t want and find insulting. You also say " speaks clearly for both sides of the divide" why do you want division ? There isn't any as I'm sure imspeak for the vast majority of people when I describe a woman as a woman and a trans woman as a trans woman 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See there you go again!! Perhaps the half that are confused are so because of people like you introducing adjectives that the don't need do t want and find insulting. You also say " speaks clearly for both sides of the divide" why do you want division ? There isn't any as I'm sure imspeak for the vast majority of people when I describe a woman as a woman and a trans woman as a trans woman 🤷♂️" But that’s assumption. You are both assuming the majority agree with your definition and that those that don’t are confused. I am not sowing division, I am trying to talk to both groups who interpret the same word two different ways — that is the opposite of divisiveness. And as I have said, I would love to be able to do that with language that doesn’t bother anyone. But that language doesn’t exist yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See there you go again!! Perhaps the half that are confused are so because of people like you introducing adjectives that the don't need do t want and find insulting. You also say " speaks clearly for both sides of the divide" why do you want division ? There isn't any as I'm sure imspeak for the vast majority of people when I describe a woman as a woman and a trans woman as a trans woman 🤷♂️ But that’s assumption. You are both assuming the majority agree with your definition and that those that don’t are confused. I am not sowing division, I am trying to talk to both groups who interpret the same word two different ways — that is the opposite of divisiveness. And as I have said, I would love to be able to do that with language that doesn’t bother anyone. But that language doesn’t exist yet." Lol you're going round and round in circles. The language is there you just don't like it 🤷♂️ Woman and trans women shouldn't offend or upset anyone as the description is perfect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The adjective Cis was used by a PHd student so as not to hurt the feelings of Trans people because the terms men and woman seemed to exclude them from the rest of humanity in their eyes, because they didnt need any adjective before their title. It wasn't because the language doesn't work, it does, its just to save the feelings of the group not include by the terms man or woman. And before you tell me I'm talking bull shit, thats what the author actually stated in a letter not so long ago, along with the fact she didn't think the term Cis would gain any traction. Quick question. If the term woman is not clear, needs clarification, how come those transitioning from a man into a Trans woman, all appear to do so changing their appearance to what seems to be an objective female standard? How can this happen if its so hard to understand what a woman is with prefixing it with a redundant adjective. Anyone know how this has happened? Because until 10 years ago, those following your ideology would have us all believe it was almost impossible to know what a woman was... very strange that. Mrs x That’s not accurate. The term cisgender was first coined in 1991 by Carl Buijs and later popularised in academic writing by Dana Defosse in the mid-1990s — not by a PhD student trying to spare anyone’s feelings. It was introduced for linguistic balance, as a neutral counterpart to transgender. It’s also worth noting that cis isn’t meant to be used constantly or in everyday conversation. It’s used where clarity matters — for example, when distinguishing between people who identify with their natal sex and those who don’t. No one’s asking for the word to replace “man” or “woman” in ordinary use; it’s just a neutral clarifier for relevant contexts. And the idea that “most people” automatically treat woman and man as terms of sex rather than gender doesn’t hold up to data. Surveys show that public understanding is split — roughly half interpret those words by gender identity, not by biology. So your implication seems to be that everyone who isn’t trans defines “woman” purely by sex, but that’s not supported by the evidence. Finally, people who transition aren’t “imitating” a sex — that’s a reductive piece of propaganda. Transition isn’t mimicry; it’s alignment. Trans people seek to bring their bodies and presentation into harmony with their internal sense of self. That’s why it’s called gender-affirming care, not gender-appropriate care." Dana Defossey WAS a PHd student when she coined the term Cis. She stated "I was struggling because there did not seem to be a way to describe people who were not transgender without inescapably couching them in normalcy and making transgender identity automatically the “other.”" So to spare Trans people from not feeling normal she came up with a prefix. Oh and whilst it is latin, she admits that she chose it because of its use in chemistry to describe molecular groupings on atoms. You ascertain that the term was first coined in 1991 but this isn't true. The word Cis can be traced back to 1914 but neither of these examples 'took off', both obviously differing from Defosseys definition of the word. So as you can see everything I said is correct. Surprised you didn't know this. Where did you 'cherry pick' the "fact" that... “most people” automatically treat woman and man as terms of sex rather than gender doesn’t hold up to data. Surveys show that public understanding is split — roughly half interpret those words by gender identity, not by biology." So you are saying 3.5 billion people believe this? I say cherry picking because thats what you are doing. I'm not saying anyone is "imitating" anything. What I am saying is that those that transition from a man into a Trans woman are doing so because they want to be a 'woman'. They believe that this aligns with how they feel. But this image of a woman is objective in standards and therefore I am saying there cannot be too much confusion about what a woman is, if those transitioning do so along the same lines as whats been the accepted form for a woman from the beginning of our species. Using your terminology you'd love to 'present' as a woman. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lol you're going round and round in circles. The language is there you just don't like it 🤷♂️ Woman and trans women shouldn't offend or upset anyone as the description is perfect. " But as I’ve already pointed out, polling shows roughly half of people interpret “woman” as sex and half as gender. If the public itself is split, how can that description be “perfect”? I’m not rejecting the language — I’m acknowledging the reality that it isn’t universally understood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dana Defossey WAS a PHd student when she coined the term Cis. She stated "I was struggling because there did not seem to be a way to describe people who were not transgender without inescapably couching them in normalcy and making transgender identity automatically the “other.”" So to spare Trans people from not feeling normal she came up with a prefix. Oh and whilst it is latin, she admits that she chose it because of its use in chemistry to describe molecular groupings on atoms. You ascertain that the term was first coined in 1991 but this isn't true. The word Cis can be traced back to 1914 but neither of these examples 'took off', both obviously differing from Defosseys definition of the word. So as you can see everything I said is correct. Surprised you didn't know this. Where did you 'cherry pick' the "fact" that... “most people” automatically treat woman and man as terms of sex rather than gender doesn’t hold up to data. Surveys show that public understanding is split — roughly half interpret those words by gender identity, not by biology." So you are saying 3.5 billion people believe this? I say cherry picking because thats what you are doing. I'm not saying anyone is "imitating" anything. What I am saying is that those that transition from a man into a Trans woman are doing so because they want to be a 'woman'. They believe that this aligns with how they feel. But this image of a woman is objective in standards and therefore I am saying there cannot be too much confusion about what a woman is, if those transitioning do so along the same lines as whats been the accepted form for a woman from the beginning of our species. Using your terminology you'd love to 'present' as a woman. Mrs x " You’re partly right about Defosse — she was a PhD student when she popularised the term in 1994, but she didn’t invent it to “spare feelings.” The term cisgender follows the same linguistic logic as transgender: both come from Latin — cis- meaning “on this side of,” trans- meaning “across.” You see the same structure in ordinary words like cisatlantic / transatlantic or cis-isomer / trans-isomer. It’s about relational balance, not ideology or emotion. Earlier usage existed too — Carl Buijs used cisgender in 1991 to describe people whose gender identity aligns with their assigned sex. Defosse simply popularised it in academia because English lacked a neutral, non-othering word for “not trans.” It caught on because it made communication clearer. As for the “3.5 billion people” line — that’s a straw man. I’m referencing polling, not the whole planet. UK surveys such as YouGov’s 2022 language perception study show roughly half of respondents interpret “woman” as a gendered term rather than purely biological. That’s not cherry-picking; that’s data. And no — people who transition aren’t “following an objective standard.” They’re aligning their outward presentation with their internal sense of self within whatever their culture recognises as feminine. That standard isn’t static or universal — it shifts across time and place. You’re welcome to disagree, but disagreement isn’t a substitute for evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ... But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before? There's a difference between a hate incident and a hate crime. A hate incident - a non crime incident where there is prejudice towards someone who the perpetrator believes to or does belong to one of the 5 protected characteristics. A hate crime - a crime has been committed which has been motivated by prejudice towards one of the five protected characteristics. So, if the data shows hate CRIMES have increased, a crime has been committed that was proven to be motivated by prejudice. Hate incidents are not recorded as crimes. I agree with everything you say. But the post I was quoting said "Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled ...". Notice the word "reports". The only way to count a genuine hate crime is if a court decides that a hate crime was committed. If the level of convictions for trans motivated hate crimes has increased relative to the number of trans people in existence, then I'll agree that trans hatred is becoming more prevalent. But if all we're saying is that reports have increased, then there could be several explanations for that." Not necessarily. A hate crime could have been committed, but the offended receives a caution, or the victim doesn't want to make a formal complaint, or there isn't enough evidence for the CPS to take the case on, or the offender cannot be identified. The crime has been committed, but doesn't reach court, so only using court results would not be representative of the number of hate crimes committed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See there you go again!! Perhaps the half that are confused are so because of people like you introducing adjectives that the don't need do t want and find insulting. You also say " speaks clearly for both sides of the divide" why do you want division ? There isn't any as I'm sure imspeak for the vast majority of people when I describe a woman as a woman and a trans woman as a trans woman 🤷♂️ But that’s assumption. You are both assuming the majority agree with your definition and that those that don’t are confused. I am not sowing division, I am trying to talk to both groups who interpret the same word two different ways — that is the opposite of divisiveness. And as I have said, I would love to be able to do that with language that doesn’t bother anyone. But that language doesn’t exist yet." It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dana Defossey WAS a PHd student when she coined the term Cis. She stated "I was struggling because there did not seem to be a way to describe people who were not transgender without inescapably couching them in normalcy and making transgender identity automatically the “other.”" So to spare Trans people from not feeling normal she came up with a prefix. Oh and whilst it is latin, she admits that she chose it because of its use in chemistry to describe molecular groupings on atoms. You ascertain that the term was first coined in 1991 but this isn't true. The word Cis can be traced back to 1914 but neither of these examples 'took off', both obviously differing from Defosseys definition of the word. So as you can see everything I said is correct. Surprised you didn't know this. Where did you 'cherry pick' the "fact" that... “most people” automatically treat woman and man as terms of sex rather than gender doesn’t hold up to data. Surveys show that public understanding is split — roughly half interpret those words by gender identity, not by biology." So you are saying 3.5 billion people believe this? I say cherry picking because thats what you are doing. I'm not saying anyone is "imitating" anything. What I am saying is that those that transition from a man into a Trans woman are doing so because they want to be a 'woman'. They believe that this aligns with how they feel. But this image of a woman is objective in standards and therefore I am saying there cannot be too much confusion about what a woman is, if those transitioning do so along the same lines as whats been the accepted form for a woman from the beginning of our species. Using your terminology you'd love to 'present' as a woman. Mrs x You’re partly right about Defosse — she was a PhD student when she popularised the term in 1994, but she didn’t invent it to “spare feelings.” The term cisgender follows the same linguistic logic as transgender: both come from Latin — cis- meaning “on this side of,” trans- meaning “across.” You see the same structure in ordinary words like cisatlantic / transatlantic or cis-isomer / trans-isomer. It’s about relational balance, not ideology or emotion. Earlier usage existed too — Carl Buijs used cisgender in 1991 to describe people whose gender identity aligns with their assigned sex. Defosse simply popularised it in academia because English lacked a neutral, non-othering word for “not trans.” It caught on because it made communication clearer. As for the “3.5 billion people” line — that’s a straw man. I’m referencing polling, not the whole planet. UK surveys such as YouGov’s 2022 language perception study show roughly half of respondents interpret “woman” as a gendered term rather than purely biological. That’s not cherry-picking; that’s data. And no — people who transition aren’t “following an objective standard.” They’re aligning their outward presentation with their internal sense of self within whatever their culture recognises as feminine. That standard isn’t static or universal — it shifts across time and place. You’re welcome to disagree, but disagreement isn’t a substitute for evidence." You do spin quickly, you said that this was not from a PHd student when this first came up but now I'm write. The term cis was used to prevent Trans people from being made to not feel normal, she actually states that and she didnt want to make them feel that they were the 'other'. Transitioning from either a man or a woman, is done with the aim of making the person feel that their body and self identity match. I understand that. But the actual physical transition is done to achieve an objective standard. Take Trans woman, they wouldn't want to go through the process if they couldn't look like a woman. What would be the point in going through all that painful treatment only to find your presentation didnt match you self identity and internal feelings. I say this as an example that this objective standard, this need and I accept it is a need, to transition into a woman, in this instance of Trans woman, is evidence that everyone knows what a woman is and its not vague, ambiguous needing clarification. Trans woman literally want to be seen as woman. Thats not a controversial thought, thats a fact. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x" It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is so offensive about the term 'cis'? Can someone explain - genuinely interested. " It makes people who were once called women a subset of a new, expanded, group of women. It's forcing a redefinition of their group. Same for men. It forces anyone using it accepting the term to agree with the premise that the term "women/men" is broader than their beliefs allow. Imagine that people from Jersey wanted to identify as English. The English might not like that. If English were being told to accept that they're now "GB English", as opposed to "Channel English", they might get upset. Imagine Jews being told that Christians are New Jews and Muslims are Mohammedian Jews, and that they're now going to be called Old Jews. They might object. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is so offensive about the term 'cis'? Can someone explain - genuinely interested. It makes people who were once called women a subset of a new, expanded, group of women. It's forcing a redefinition of their group. Same for men. It forces anyone using it accepting the term to agree with the premise that the term "women/men" is broader than their beliefs allow. Imagine that people from Jersey wanted to identify as English. The English might not like that. If English were being told to accept that they're now "GB English", as opposed to "Channel English", they might get upset. Imagine Jews being told that Christians are New Jews and Muslims are Mohammedian Jews, and that they're now going to be called Old Jews. They might object." The GB english/Channel English, I think is the better example of the two. But I still don't see why it would be offensive. What, exactly, is at risk? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do spin quickly, you said that this was not from a PHd student when this first came up but now I'm write. The term cis was used to prevent Trans people from being made to not feel normal, she actually states that and she didnt want to make them feel that they were the 'other'. Transitioning from either a man or a woman, is done with the aim of making the person feel that their body and self identity match. I understand that. But the actual physical transition is done to achieve an objective standard. Take Trans woman, they wouldn't want to go through the process if they couldn't look like a woman. What would be the point in going through all that painful treatment only to find your presentation didnt match you self identity and internal feelings. I say this as an example that this objective standard, this need and I accept it is a need, to transition into a woman, in this instance of Trans woman, is evidence that everyone knows what a woman is and its not vague, ambiguous needing clarification. Trans woman literally want to be seen as woman. Thats not a controversial thought, thats a fact. Mrs x" Just to clarify one point — yes, I did say Defosse was a PhD student, and that’s true. I never claimed she coined the term, only that she popularised it. Carl Buijs used cisgender earlier; Defosse’s academic use is what made it stick. It’s worth being accurate about that, since this whole conversation is about using language precisely, not emotionally. And about transition — trans people don’t transition to “become” cis or to copy anyone else. They transition to feel at home in their own bodies and lives. For some, that means hormones or surgery; for others, it’s entirely social. None of those paths is more or less “real.” Being trans isn’t about chasing someone else’s template — it’s about alignment, not imitation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable." I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x" I dont mean that Trans is not based in reality, it obviously is, just to clarify that. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ..." "But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before?" "There's a difference between a hate incident and a hate crime. A hate incident - a non crime incident where there is prejudice towards someone who the perpetrator believes to or does belong to one of the 5 protected characteristics. A hate crime - a crime has been committed which has been motivated by prejudice towards one of the five protected characteristics. So, if the data shows hate CRIMES have increased, a crime has been committed that was proven to be motivated by prejudice. Hate incidents are not recorded as crimes." "I agree with everything you say. But the post I was quoting said "Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled ...". Notice the word "reports". The only way to count a genuine hate crime is if a court decides that a hate crime was committed. If the level of convictions for trans motivated hate crimes has increased relative to the number of trans people in existence, then I'll agree that trans hatred is becoming more prevalent. But if all we're saying is that reports have increased, then there could be several explanations for that." "Not necessarily. A hate crime could have been committed, but the offended receives a caution, or the victim doesn't want to make a formal complaint, or there isn't enough evidence for the CPS to take the case on, or the offender cannot be identified. The crime has been committed, but doesn't reach court, so only using court results would not be representative of the number of hate crimes committed." Again, I agree with everything you say, particularly about the number of convictions not being an accurate gauge of the number of incidents. But my point above is that the number of reports of a specific crime is an even less good gauge of the number of incidents. Especially when the crime involved is starting to take on a political edge. The original poster's claim that reports have doubled and therefore hatred against trans people has doubled isn't a sensible deduction to make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x" I have a data-driven belief system. You have a data-excluding ideology. And your argument rather proves my point. There are countless subsets of men and women — by age, by height, by fitness, by attraction, by social role, by culture. Yet the only subset you object to is the one that includes trans people. That’s not about clarity; that’s about discomfort with inclusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do spin quickly, you said that this was not from a PHd student when this first came up but now I'm write. The term cis was used to prevent Trans people from being made to not feel normal, she actually states that and she didnt want to make them feel that they were the 'other'. Transitioning from either a man or a woman, is done with the aim of making the person feel that their body and self identity match. I understand that. But the actual physical transition is done to achieve an objective standard. Take Trans woman, they wouldn't want to go through the process if they couldn't look like a woman. What would be the point in going through all that painful treatment only to find your presentation didnt match you self identity and internal feelings. I say this as an example that this objective standard, this need and I accept it is a need, to transition into a woman, in this instance of Trans woman, is evidence that everyone knows what a woman is and its not vague, ambiguous needing clarification. Trans woman literally want to be seen as woman. Thats not a controversial thought, thats a fact. Mrs x Just to clarify one point — yes, I did say Defosse was a PhD student, and that’s true. I never claimed she coined the term, only that she popularised it. Carl Buijs used cisgender earlier; Defosse’s academic use is what made it stick. It’s worth being accurate about that, since this whole conversation is about using language precisely, not emotionally. And about transition — trans people don’t transition to “become” cis or to copy anyone else. They transition to feel at home in their own bodies and lives. For some, that means hormones or surgery; for others, it’s entirely social. None of those paths is more or less “real.” Being trans isn’t about chasing someone else’s template — it’s about alignment, not imitation. " From tinternet... Most linguistic and historical analyses (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Historical Association, and several gender-studies publications) now conclude: Dana Leland Defosse (1994) coined cisgender first. Carl Buijs (1995-96) independently used and spread the term shortly after. Please move on, its ok not to be wrong. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x" You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again, I agree with everything you say, particularly about the number of convictions not being an accurate gauge of the number of incidents. But my point above is that the number of reports of a specific crime is an even less good gauge of the number of incidents. Especially when the crime involved is starting to take on a political edge. The original poster's claim that reports have doubled and therefore hatred against trans people has doubled isn't a sensible deduction to make." That’s a fair distinction, but I didn’t claim that reports alone prove hatred has doubled. What I said is that the sharp rise in reports — when seen alongside other indicators like polling trends, media framing, and social hostility — points to an increase in vitriol toward trans people. You’re right that reports don’t equal convictions, but they do reflect public experience and confidence in reporting. A rise that steep, sustained over years, doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Even if part of it comes from better awareness, that still means more people are facing — or at least recognising — prejudice. It’s also worth noting that studies have shown trans people are less likely to report hate incidents now than they were a few years ago. I can understand why — trust in how such reports are handled has eroded. So if reporting confidence has dropped but total reports have still risen, that suggests hostility has grown substantially. The barrier to reporting has gone up, yet the numbers are still climbing — which points to a real escalation, not just more awareness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From tinternet... Most linguistic and historical analyses (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Historical Association, and several gender-studies publications) now conclude: Dana Leland Defosse (1994) coined cisgender first. Carl Buijs (1995-96) independently used and spread the term shortly after. Please move on, its ok not to be wrong. Mrs x" Then it seems our sources differ — which actually proves my point. You’ve found one citation; I’ve found another. The Oxford English Dictionary and later academic sources credit Defosse with first use in 1994, but some cite Buijs’ usage earlier. One of us may be right, or both may be partly right. Either way, it shows there’s ambiguity in the record — and when data conflict, the honest conclusion isn’t to declare victory, it’s to acknowledge that more evidence is needed. That’s how inquiry works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years ... But that's just *reports* of hate crimes, i.e. trans people feeling that they have been victimised. What do the actual hate crime figures look like? Have there been more convictions than before? There's a difference between a hate incident and a hate crime. A hate incident - a non crime incident where there is prejudice towards someone who the perpetrator believes to or does belong to one of the 5 protected characteristics. A hate crime - a crime has been committed which has been motivated by prejudice towards one of the five protected characteristics. So, if the data shows hate CRIMES have increased, a crime has been committed that was proven to be motivated by prejudice. Hate incidents are not recorded as crimes. I agree with everything you say. But the post I was quoting said "Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled ...". Notice the word "reports". The only way to count a genuine hate crime is if a court decides that a hate crime was committed. If the level of convictions for trans motivated hate crimes has increased relative to the number of trans people in existence, then I'll agree that trans hatred is becoming more prevalent. But if all we're saying is that reports have increased, then there could be several explanations for that. Not necessarily. A hate crime could have been committed, but the offended receives a caution, or the victim doesn't want to make a formal complaint, or there isn't enough evidence for the CPS to take the case on, or the offender cannot be identified. The crime has been committed, but doesn't reach court, so only using court results would not be representative of the number of hate crimes committed. Again, I agree with everything you say, particularly about the number of convictions not being an accurate gauge of the number of incidents. But my point above is that the number of reports of a specific crime is an even less good gauge of the number of incidents. Especially when the crime involved is starting to take on a political edge. The original poster's claim that reports have doubled and therefore hatred against trans people has doubled isn't a sensible deduction to make." I think you mean the number of crimes. Not incidents. And again, the number of actual hate crimes committed is likely more than that, because there are blockages for people to report them. Fear of not being believed. Fear of being outed. Shame. Guilt. So, realistically, all hate crimes are under reported. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From tinternet... Most linguistic and historical analyses (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Historical Association, and several gender-studies publications) now conclude: Dana Leland Defosse (1994) coined cisgender first. Carl Buijs (1995-96) independently used and spread the term shortly after. Please move on, its ok not to be wrong. Mrs x" My apologies — I was wrong, but unfortunately so were you. It seems there’s evidence the cis/trans distinction was being made at least eighty years earlier by early German sexologists, particularly Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. They used terms like Zissexuell and Transsexuell to distinguish between people whose physical sex aligned with their sense of self and those for whom it didn’t. In other words, the idea long predates both of the people we’ve been debating about — Defosse and Buijs just revived and popularised a concept that had already existed in academic sexology for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x I have a data-driven belief system. You have a data-excluding ideology. And your argument rather proves my point. There are countless subsets of men and women — by age, by height, by fitness, by attraction, by social role, by culture. Yet the only subset you object to is the one that includes trans people. That’s not about clarity; that’s about discomfort with inclusion." Hahahaha you are really a very silly person. You have no clue as to what a subset is yet you try and give an explanation. You then finish off with a little 'barb' about inclusivity, your a proper nasty little individual at times. So just so you know here's an explanation of sunsets A subset means: A set A is a subset of B if every element of A is also an element of B. Example: B = {1, 2, 3, 4} A = {1, 2} → A ⊂ B (A is a subset of B). So “subset” applies to sets — not to individual traits or attributes. What height, weight, wealth, and culture really are They are all properties or attributes of a human being, not sets contained within one. Each of these describes aspects of a human being, but none of them contain the person — they’re features that help define or characterize someone. NOT A SUBSET. So are Trans woman and Ciswoman seen as sunsets of woman? "If we define: Women = the set of all individuals who identify (or are categorized) as women. Trans women = the subset of that group who are transgender. Cis women = the subset of that group who are not transgender. Then, yes: Trans women ⊂ Women Cis women ⊂ Women and together, they form the total set: Women = Trans women ∪ Cis women This is the logical structure used in most inclusive sociological or linguistic models. In social or identity terms Whether people accept this relationship depends on definitions and social perspectives: In gender-affirming frameworks (used in sociology, medicine, and law in many countries), trans women are women, meaning they belong to the same overarching category — so “trans” and “cis” are just descriptive modifiers of the same category woman. This is your ideological position. Some people who hold biological essentialist views disagree, defining “woman” strictly by reproductive or chromosomal traits, in which case they might not consider “trans women” a subset of “women.” That’s a philosophical and political disagreement, not a logical one. Visual model: If you think of Women as a circle, you can represent it like this: Women ├── Cis women └── Trans women Both are categories within the broader set of “women.” They differ by one characteristic — gender history or transition status — but share the larger identity “woman.” How scholars and dictionaries treat it Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Collins define “trans woman” as “a woman who was assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.”, That definition explicitly places trans women within the class “women.” Similarly, “cis woman”, “a woman whose gender identity aligns with her sex assigned at birth.”, Also within the same class. Thus, academically and linguistically, both are recognized as subsets of women." Hope this helps, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From tinternet... Most linguistic and historical analyses (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Historical Association, and several gender-studies publications) now conclude: Dana Leland Defosse (1994) coined cisgender first. Carl Buijs (1995-96) independently used and spread the term shortly after. Please move on, its ok not to be wrong. Mrs x My apologies — I was wrong, but unfortunately so were you. It seems there’s evidence the cis/trans distinction was being made at least eighty years earlier by early German sexologists, particularly Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. They used terms like Zissexuell and Transsexuell to distinguish between people whose physical sex aligned with their sense of self and those for whom it didn’t. In other words, the idea long predates both of the people we’ve been debating about — Defosse and Buijs just revived and popularised a concept that had already existed in academic sexology for decades." I had found that there is some suggestion that it was being used in 1914 in Germany in relation to dressing according to the gender one identified with and that it was different to transvestitism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree that the media often amplifies outrage to keep people engaged, but that doesn’t fully explain the shift I’m noticing. Hate-crime reports labelled as transphobic have more than doubled in the past five years (Home Office data), and polls like YouGov and Ipsos show a steady rise in people saying trans rights have “gone too far.” Those changes suggest something broader than just headlines. " For someone who states elsewhere on this thread that you have a data driven belief system, maybe you should consider that if over 5 years the number of trans people has doubled, then it is hardly surprising that hate crimes might have doubled accordingly. It may also be the case that those individuals have been far readier to complain or far more sensitive to a perceived sleight. This doesn't only manifest in the trans community: as a police liaison rep, in the last year there has been a massive (tenfold) increase in sexual crimes, but when I have quizzed the area inspector she stated that Home Office rules mean that those stats now include any slants on social media (I understand that the Home Office is actively using Palantir software across Facebook to monitor NCHIs) and these are being reported - incorrectly in my humble opinion - as crimes. One sleepy local village of less than 400 inhabitants saw over 10 sex and violent crimes being reported, scaring the wits out of its elderly folk. You are correct in saying that sequential opinion polls are showing a marginal "hardening" of attitudes regarding use of toilets and changing rooms by trans. But those same polls suggest consistently that most people don't actually give a shit whether you're trans. As it happens we as a hetero couple can perhaps quite uniquely say that we have a close persoanl friend who is transitioning. We don't honestly understand it, but we value that person as a close friend and trans doesn't come into it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had found that there is some suggestion that it was being used in 1914 in Germany in relation to dressing according to the gender one identified with and that it was different to transvestitism. " You’re right — there’s some evidence the terminology goes back even further. I hadn’t realised they actually used the term cis itself, though I did know about the rest of Hirschfeld’s work. The Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin was already distinguishing between Zissexuell and Transsexuell people in the 1910s — those whose physical sex aligned with their identity and those for whom it didn’t. That institute was decades ahead of its time, but the Nazis destroyed it in 1933, and most of its research was lost. If it had survived, the science and language around gender and sexuality would probably be far more advanced today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From tinternet... Most linguistic and historical analyses (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Historical Association, and several gender-studies publications) now conclude: Dana Leland Defosse (1994) coined cisgender first. Carl Buijs (1995-96) independently used and spread the term shortly after. Please move on, its ok not to be wrong. Mrs x My apologies — I was wrong, but unfortunately so were you. It seems there’s evidence the cis/trans distinction was being made at least eighty years earlier by early German sexologists, particularly Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. They used terms like Zissexuell and Transsexuell to distinguish between people whose physical sex aligned with their sense of self and those for whom it didn’t. In other words, the idea long predates both of the people we’ve been debating about — Defosse and Buijs just revived and popularised a concept that had already existed in academic sexology for decades." Thanks for your apology even if you couldn't resist the chance to say I was wrong because I didn't reference Magnus Hirschfeld. Unlucky for you but I did. If you had bothered to read my earlier post I referenced that the term had been used earlier but it was adopted. I didn't reference Magnus Hitschfrld by name due to the contentious allegations surrounding him but I mentioned the date of 1914. Go back and read it, you see its there. Omg I'm almost peeing my draws, possibly 2 apologies in one thread, u heard of. I await excitedly. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had found that there is some suggestion that it was being used in 1914 in Germany in relation to dressing according to the gender one identified with and that it was different to transvestitism. You’re right — there’s some evidence the terminology goes back even further. I hadn’t realised they actually used the term cis itself, though I did know about the rest of Hirschfeld’s work. The Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin was already distinguishing between Zissexuell and Transsexuell people in the 1910s — those whose physical sex aligned with their identity and those for whom it didn’t. That institute was decades ahead of its time, but the Nazis destroyed it in 1933, and most of its research was lost. If it had survived, the science and language around gender and sexuality would probably be far more advanced today." You got in before me, Little 'sorry' wouldn't have harmed, I'll just assume you meant yo say it haha, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For someone who states elsewhere on this thread that you have a data driven belief system, maybe you should consider that if over 5 years the number of trans people has doubled, then it is hardly surprising that hate crimes might have doubled accordingly. It may also be the case that those individuals have been far readier to complain or far more sensitive to a perceived sleight. This doesn't only manifest in the trans community: as a police liaison rep, in the last year there has been a massive (tenfold) increase in sexual crimes, but when I have quizzed the area inspector she stated that Home Office rules mean that those stats now include any slants on social media (I understand that the Home Office is actively using Palantir software across Facebook to monitor NCHIs) and these are being reported - incorrectly in my humble opinion - as crimes. One sleepy local village of less than 400 inhabitants saw over 10 sex and violent crimes being reported, scaring the wits out of its elderly folk. You are correct in saying that sequential opinion polls are showing a marginal "hardening" of attitudes regarding use of toilets and changing rooms by trans. But those same polls suggest consistently that most people don't actually give a shit whether you're trans. As it happens we as a hetero couple can perhaps quite uniquely say that we have a close persoanl friend who is transitioning. We don't honestly understand it, but we value that person as a close friend and trans doesn't come into it." Fascinating — I wasn’t aware of any data suggesting the number of trans people had doubled in the past five years. If you have a source for that, I’d genuinely like to read it — I’m always keen to look at new data and see how it fits into the broader picture. And just to clarify, I haven’t said I think the general public has become more hostile. I actually agree that most people still take an each to their own view. What I’ve been referring to is the shift in public discourse — the way politicians, parts of the media, and certain online spaces have turned trans issues into a flashpoint. That’s the “hardening” I’m talking about: not people’s private attitudes, but the rhetoric that shapes how the public talks about us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had found that there is some suggestion that it was being used in 1914 in Germany in relation to dressing according to the gender one identified with and that it was different to transvestitism. You’re right — there’s some evidence the terminology goes back even further. I hadn’t realised they actually used the term cis itself, though I did know about the rest of Hirschfeld’s work. The Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin was already distinguishing between Zissexuell and Transsexuell people in the 1910s — those whose physical sex aligned with their identity and those for whom it didn’t. That institute was decades ahead of its time, but the Nazis destroyed it in 1933, and most of its research was lost. If it had survived, the science and language around gender and sexuality would probably be far more advanced today." Back in the game, you were responding to another poster not me, I still may get that other apology, 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞 Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had found that there is some suggestion that it was being used in 1914 in Germany in relation to dressing according to the gender one identified with and that it was different to transvestitism. You’re right — there’s some evidence the terminology goes back even further. I hadn’t realised they actually used the term cis itself, though I did know about the rest of Hirschfeld’s work. The Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin was already distinguishing between Zissexuell and Transsexuell people in the 1910s — those whose physical sex aligned with their identity and those for whom it didn’t. That institute was decades ahead of its time, but the Nazis destroyed it in 1933, and most of its research was lost. If it had survived, the science and language around gender and sexuality would probably be far more advanced today.Back in the game, you were responding to another poster not me, I still may get that other apology, 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞 Mrs x" I doubt it. You accuse other people of being nasty, but re-read your own posts and decide who has been polite and civil in their engagement, and who has not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hahahaha you are really a very silly person. You have no clue as to what a subset is yet you try and give an explanation. You then finish off with a little 'barb' about inclusivity, your a proper nasty little individual at times. So just so you know here's an explanation of sunsets A subset means: A set A is a subset of B if every element of A is also an element of B. Example: B = {1, 2, 3, 4} A = {1, 2} → A ⊂ B (A is a subset of B). So “subset” applies to sets — not to individual traits or attributes. What height, weight, wealth, and culture really are They are all properties or attributes of a human being, not sets contained within one. Each of these describes aspects of a human being, but none of them contain the person — they’re features that help define or characterize someone. NOT A SUBSET. So are Trans woman and Ciswoman seen as sunsets of woman? "If we define: Women = the set of all individuals who identify (or are categorized) as women. Trans women = the subset of that group who are transgender. Cis women = the subset of that group who are not transgender. Then, yes: Trans women ⊂ Women Cis women ⊂ Women and together, they form the total set: Women = Trans women ∪ Cis women This is the logical structure used in most inclusive sociological or linguistic models. In social or identity terms Whether people accept this relationship depends on definitions and social perspectives: In gender-affirming frameworks (used in sociology, medicine, and law in many countries), trans women are women, meaning they belong to the same overarching category — so “trans” and “cis” are just descriptive modifiers of the same category woman. This is your ideological position. Some people who hold biological essentialist views disagree, defining “woman” strictly by reproductive or chromosomal traits, in which case they might not consider “trans women” a subset of “women.” That’s a philosophical and political disagreement, not a logical one. Visual model: If you think of Women as a circle, you can represent it like this: Women ├── Cis women └── Trans women Both are categories within the broader set of “women.” They differ by one characteristic — gender history or transition status — but share the larger identity “woman.” How scholars and dictionaries treat it Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Collins define “trans woman” as “a woman who was assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.”, That definition explicitly places trans women within the class “women.” Similarly, “cis woman”, “a woman whose gender identity aligns with her sex assigned at birth.”, Also within the same class. Thus, academically and linguistically, both are recognized as subsets of women." Hope this helps, Mrs x" So, just to be clear — you’re saying that because your beliefs define “woman” differently, I’m meant to change the way I use the word, even though the linguistic, medical, and legal data all align with mine? Or are you actually saying I’m right about the logical structure, and we just interpret the definition differently based on belief? Because if that’s the case, then this isn’t about logic or language at all — it’s about worldview. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hahahaha you are really a very silly person. You have no clue as to what a subset is yet you try and give an explanation. You then finish off with a little 'barb' about inclusivity, your a proper nasty little individual at times. So just so you know here's an explanation of sunsets A subset means: A set A is a subset of B if every element of A is also an element of B. Example: B = {1, 2, 3, 4} A = {1, 2} → A ⊂ B (A is a subset of B). So “subset” applies to sets — not to individual traits or attributes. What height, weight, wealth, and culture really are They are all properties or attributes of a human being, not sets contained within one. Each of these describes aspects of a human being, but none of them contain the person — they’re features that help define or characterize someone. NOT A SUBSET. So are Trans woman and Ciswoman seen as sunsets of woman? "If we define: Women = the set of all individuals who identify (or are categorized) as women. Trans women = the subset of that group who are transgender. Cis women = the subset of that group who are not transgender. Then, yes: Trans women ⊂ Women Cis women ⊂ Women and together, they form the total set: Women = Trans women ∪ Cis women This is the logical structure used in most inclusive sociological or linguistic models. In social or identity terms Whether people accept this relationship depends on definitions and social perspectives: In gender-affirming frameworks (used in sociology, medicine, and law in many countries), trans women are women, meaning they belong to the same overarching category — so “trans” and “cis” are just descriptive modifiers of the same category woman. This is your ideological position. Some people who hold biological essentialist views disagree, defining “woman” strictly by reproductive or chromosomal traits, in which case they might not consider “trans women” a subset of “women.” That’s a philosophical and political disagreement, not a logical one. Visual model: If you think of Women as a circle, you can represent it like this: Women ├── Cis women └── Trans women Both are categories within the broader set of “women.” They differ by one characteristic — gender history or transition status — but share the larger identity “woman.” How scholars and dictionaries treat it Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Collins define “trans woman” as “a woman who was assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.”, That definition explicitly places trans women within the class “women.” Similarly, “cis woman”, “a woman whose gender identity aligns with her sex assigned at birth.”, Also within the same class. Thus, academically and linguistically, both are recognized as subsets of women." Hope this helps, Mrs x So, just to be clear — you’re saying that because your beliefs define “woman” differently, I’m meant to change the way I use the word, even though the linguistic, medical, and legal data all align with mine? Or are you actually saying I’m right about the logical structure, and we just interpret the definition differently based on belief? Because if that’s the case, then this isn’t about logic or language at all — it’s about worldview." Im saying that what you said counts as subsets of humans arent, they are characteristics of individual humans. But using the term cis woman does mean that this is a subset of woman and I dont believe thats true. As for you not changing how you use the word because you believe the law, medicine and linguistics align with your beliefs thats fine because you cheery pick from these fields to suit your ideology. Don't get me wrong I do the same. But without, evidence, facts or even belief could you answer a question. If in the future, science advanced to the stage were if you wanted to transition, you could do so on a molecular level. So everything would change, DNA, anatomy, Chromosomes, everything to match how you identified would you do it? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? " Absolutely everyone should have the dame rights. As for your beliefs you are free to have them and express them, and they are equally protected as anyone else's belief. As for the issue of Cis, I'm not sure who I'm addressing her, so I'll voice it like this. So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. If I know accept that I am a cis woman then I am agreeing to there being subsets of woman, something you said there shouldn't be. So what changed for you and do you now believe there should be sunsets? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im saying that what you said counts as subsets of humans arent, they are characteristics of individual humans. But using the term cis woman does mean that this is a subset of woman and I dont believe thats true. As for you not changing how you use the word because you believe the law, medicine and linguistics align with your beliefs thats fine because you cheery pick from these fields to suit your ideology. Don't get me wrong I do the same. But without, evidence, facts or even belief could you answer a question. If in the future, science advanced to the stage were if you wanted to transition, you could do so on a molecular level. So everything would change, DNA, anatomy, Chromosomes, everything to match how you identified would you do it? Mrs x" I should apologise — in my eagerness to reply earlier, I accidentally presented that as a false dichotomy. I should have asked whether you had a third explanation rather than just framing two. That said, if we both agree that people can use language as they understand it, then why are we arguing over my use of “cis” in the first place? There shouldn’t be an issue — unless the problem isn’t the word itself, but who’s allowed to say it. And if you have data that contradicts the definitions used in law, medicine, or linguistics, please point me to it — I’d genuinely like to read it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Language and definitions change frequently and some words can take on negative or positive connotations over time. "Sick" and "wicked" used to have negative connotations, but are now used to refer to something good. Similarly, the word "spastic" used to be a perfectly acceptable medically-based word to describe a medical condition, or somebody disabled suffering from the particular condition. Over time, the word was misused and became as it is now, an insulting pejorative. A very worthy charity, The Spastics Society, only changed its name in 1994 to Scope, so just 21 years ago. If "cis" is considered to be offensive by some, it's because of the progression of language due to some of the associations and reasons explained by other posters above." That’s a fair point about how words shift meaning over time, but I’d dispute that “cis” is being used as a pejorative in most cases. Its origin and continued use in academic, medical, and legal contexts are entirely neutral — it only gains a negative tone when people project hostility onto it. Like any descriptor, its tone depends on intent, not existence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's difficult to give any solid evidence to support this but my feeling is that anti-trans sentiment is just one of the many divisive tools in the modern right-wing/conservative/reactionary toolkit. And as the popularity of right-wing ideas in general has increased recently then we see anti-trans sentiment increasing too. As has already been mentioned, this is probably coming from the US Christian right and such powerful and vocal people as Trump and Musk. And most European right-wingers seem to be following the lead of the US. In the UK, Reform is effectively just the British version of MAGA. I'm not convinced that all people who say that the term cis woman is offensive genuinely believe it is. It seems more likely to be just a theatrical way of saying they think that gender and sex are 100% aligned, that they are offended by anyone disagreeing with them and that they think limiting particular words that express disagreement might somehow work when argument fails. I guess some people do genuinely see cis as a slur but I don't see it being intended as such by the vast majority of people who use it. " That aligns closely with what I’ve seen too. There’s a definite political incentive in framing neutral language as provocative, because it keeps people fighting over words instead of facts. I also tend to avoid using cis as a direct label for an individual I’m speaking to. It’s most useful when describing patterns, laws, or data — not as a personal tag. When people feel labelled, it stops being about clarity and starts feeling like classification. The goal should always be understanding, not sorting people into boxes. I agree that a few people may genuinely find cis uncomfortable, but intent and frequency matter — there’s no real evidence of it being used as a slur in the mainstream. Most of us who use it do so because it’s descriptive and clear, not because we’re trying to provoke anyone. And I’m completely open to changing my terminology to something else that’s equally clear and descriptive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im saying that what you said counts as subsets of humans arent, they are characteristics of individual humans. But using the term cis woman does mean that this is a subset of woman and I dont believe thats true. As for you not changing how you use the word because you believe the law, medicine and linguistics align with your beliefs thats fine because you cheery pick from these fields to suit your ideology. Don't get me wrong I do the same. But without, evidence, facts or even belief could you answer a question. If in the future, science advanced to the stage were if you wanted to transition, you could do so on a molecular level. So everything would change, DNA, anatomy, Chromosomes, everything to match how you identified would you do it? Mrs x I should apologise — in my eagerness to reply earlier, I accidentally presented that as a false dichotomy. I should have asked whether you had a third explanation rather than just framing two. That said, if we both agree that people can use language as they understand it, then why are we arguing over my use of “cis” in the first place? There shouldn’t be an issue — unless the problem isn’t the word itself, but who’s allowed to say it. And if you have data that contradicts the definitions used in law, medicine, or linguistics, please point me to it — I’d genuinely like to read it." I've explained why, it implies a subset. It has nothing to do with who is saying it but rather the fact that its being 'pushed' onto me to accept the issue of subsets. There's tons of stuff that challenges the use of Cis, go look for it yourself. There's even crutuc8sm from the LGBT community, even sections of the Intersex community are against its use. AI it and you should find what I'm saying, its not just a specific issue for me. In fact other woman have posted on here that the find it offensive. You just ignore these people because you can justify it by it being in the dictionary and its usage in other areas. But once someone says its offensive you should stop. It's tantamount to being ona forum about race and saying its ok to use the N-word because its in the dictionary, is used in film, music and literature, so it must be ok, but its not is it? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Language and definitions change frequently and some words can take on negative or positive connotations over time. "Sick" and "wicked" used to have negative connotations, but are now used to refer to something good. Similarly, the word "spastic" used to be a perfectly acceptable medically-based word to describe a medical condition, or somebody disabled suffering from the particular condition. Over time, the word was misused and became as it is now, an insulting pejorative. A very worthy charity, The Spastics Society, only changed its name in 1994 to Scope, so just 21 years ago. If "cis" is considered to be offensive by some, it's because of the progression of language due to some of the associations and reasons explained by other posters above. That’s a fair point about how words shift meaning over time, but I’d dispute that “cis” is being used as a pejorative in most cases. Its origin and continued use in academic, medical, and legal contexts are entirely neutral — it only gains a negative tone when people project hostility onto it. Like any descriptor, its tone depends on intent, not existence." Just because you don't believe it to be pejorative doesn't mean that others don't. For example, I don't find the word "tranny" to be offensive, but many do, so I no longer use it to describe my fellow trannies  Be kind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've explained why, it implies a subset. It has nothing to do with who is saying it but rather the fact that its being 'pushed' onto me to accept the issue of subsets. There's tons of stuff that challenges the use of Cis, go look for it yourself. There's even crutuc8sm from the LGBT community, even sections of the Intersex community are against its use. AI it and you should find what I'm saying, its not just a specific issue for me. In fact other woman have posted on here that the find it offensive. You just ignore these people because you can justify it by it being in the dictionary and its usage in other areas. But once someone says its offensive you should stop. It's tantamount to being ona forum about race and saying its ok to use the N-word because its in the dictionary, is used in film, music and literature, so it must be ok, but its not is it? Mrs x" There’s a very simple way to prove that cis isn’t the same as the n-word — you’re using cis freely right now, and you’d never use the other. They’re not remotely comparable in history, intent, or usage. One is a neutral descriptive adjective used in academic, medical, and legal contexts worldwide; the other is a racial slur born from centuries of dehumanisation. Cis simply describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I’ve also struggled to find any credible sources supporting your claim that LGBTQIA+ organisations recommend not using “cis.” In fact, I went through the first six pages of search results for “why you shouldn’t use cis.” Out of all of them, only two argued against it — and both came from organisations or publications that openly identify as anti-trans. Every other result either explained or supported the term’s neutral meaning. Major equality organisations are consistent on this point: Stonewall defines it as “someone whose gender is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth.” (Stonewall glossary) Amnesty International UK: “Cisgender: someone whose gender identity aligns with the gender they were assigned at birth.” (Amnesty guide for trans allies) Edge Hill University (UK): “Cis(gender): a person whose gender identity aligns with the gender they were assigned at birth.” (Edge Hill Inclusive Language Guide PDF) So far, I’ve found no credible LGBTQIA+ group advising against its use. If you have a source from a recognised LGBTQIA+ organisation that says we shouldn’t use “cis,” please share it — I’d genuinely like to read it. But that still doesn’t explain why, at this point, you’ve told me both that I’m free to use language that matches my beliefs and that I shouldn’t use cis. It can’t be both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because you don't believe it to be pejorative doesn't mean that others don't. For example, I don't find the word "tranny" to be offensive, but many do, so I no longer use it to describe my fellow trannies Be kind "That’s fair, but there’s an important distinction here. There are no credible, non–anti-trans sources or organisations that classify cis as a slur. Every instance I’ve found of that argument comes from groups or publications already opposed to trans inclusion. As I’ve said before, I’m perfectly open to using a different word — I even offered natal female woman as an alternative. It just needs to be equally clear and descriptive. Otherwise, what I’m saying risks being misread depending on the beliefs of whoever’s reading. And that’s really the point: I’m not trying to offend anyone, I’m trying to communicate precisely. If clarity is the goal, then we need language that everyone can understand — not silence born from discomfort with a neutral adjective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you mean the number of crimes. Not incidents." I meant incidences, or occurrences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've explained why, it implies a subset. It has nothing to do with who is saying it but rather the fact that its being 'pushed' onto me to accept the issue of subsets. There's tons of stuff that challenges the use of Cis, go look for it yourself. There's even crutuc8sm from the LGBT community, even sections of the Intersex community are against its use. AI it and you should find what I'm saying, its not just a specific issue for me. In fact other woman have posted on here that the find it offensive. You just ignore these people because you can justify it by it being in the dictionary and its usage in other areas. But once someone says its offensive you should stop. It's tantamount to being ona forum about race and saying its ok to use the N-word because its in the dictionary, is used in film, music and literature, so it must be ok, but its not is it? Mrs x There’s a very simple way to prove that cis isn’t the same as the n-word — you’re using cis freely right now, and you’d never use the other. They’re not remotely comparable in history, intent, or usage. One is a neutral descriptive adjective used in academic, medical, and legal contexts worldwide; the other is a racial slur born from centuries of dehumanisation. Cis simply describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I’ve also struggled to find any credible sources supporting your claim that LGBTQIA+ organisations recommend not using “cis.” In fact, I went through the first six pages of search results for “why you shouldn’t use cis.” Out of all of them, only two argued against it — and both came from organisations or publications that openly identify as anti-trans. Every other result either explained or supported the term’s neutral meaning. Major equality organisations are consistent on this point: Stonewall defines it as “someone whose gender is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth.” (Stonewall glossary) Amnesty International UK: “Cisgender: someone whose gender identity aligns with the gender they were assigned at birth.” (Amnesty guide for trans allies) Edge Hill University (UK): “Cis(gender): a person whose gender identity aligns with the gender they were assigned at birth.” (Edge Hill Inclusive Language Guide PDF) So far, I’ve found no credible LGBTQIA+ group advising against its use. If you have a source from a recognised LGBTQIA+ organisation that says we shouldn’t use “cis,” please share it — I’d genuinely like to read it. But that still doesn’t explain why, at this point, you’ve told me both that I’m free to use language that matches my beliefs and that I shouldn’t use cis. It can’t be both." Listen stop being a stubborn guy. It's the same as not using the word 'Fat' as a descriptor on a Weight watchers forum. It's not about the legitimacy of the word, whether its an accurate description, its more about morals, consideration and respect but I'll expect you to ask for the scientific definitions of these immeasurable qualities. Maybe its because I'm not a guy that I can understand such things. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you mean the number of crimes. Not incidents. I meant incidences, or occurrences." Ok, but an incident or occurrence is not necessarily a crime. If you want to talk about hate crimes, then refer to hate crimes. As I explained before, non crime incidents which have an underlying prejudice are recorded as hate incidents, not hate crimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listen stop being a stubborn guy. It's the same as not using the word 'Fat' as a descriptor on a Weight watchers forum. It's not about the legitimacy of the word, whether its an accurate description, its more about morals, consideration and respect but I'll expect you to ask for the scientific definitions of these immeasurable qualities. Maybe its because I'm not a guy that I can understand such things. Mrs x" You’re shifting the question again. I asked for evidence from any credible source — it doesn’t have to be LGBTQIA+, just not explicitly anti-trans — that supports your claim that cis shouldn’t be used. None have been provided. Comparing cis to calling someone fat on a diet forum isn’t equivalent. One is a neutral descriptive adjective recognised in law, medicine, and linguistics worldwide; the other is a personal comment that carries clear social judgment. Morals and respect absolutely matter — but respect has to work both ways. If someone dislikes cis, I’m open to alternatives, provided they’re equally clear and descriptive. What I can’t do is abandon a neutral, evidence-based term simply because some dislike what it represents. That isn’t respect; that’s erasure. So again: if you can show me a credible, non-anti-trans source advising against the word, I’ll happily read it. Otherwise, we’re back to belief, not evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? Absolutely everyone should have the dame rights. As for your beliefs you are free to have them and express them, and they are equally protected as anyone else's belief. As for the issue of Cis, I'm not sure who I'm addressing her, so I'll voice it like this. So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. If I know accept that I am a cis woman then I am agreeing to there being subsets of woman, something you said there shouldn't be. So what changed for you and do you now believe there should be sunsets? Mrs x" I believe you were the one who introduced subsets into the discussion. I believe everyone is human and has a valid reason for aligning or not with the biological sex they were assigned at birth. What has age got to do with anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because you don't believe it to be pejorative doesn't mean that others don't. For example, I don't find the word "tranny" to be offensive, but many do, so I no longer use it to describe my fellow trannies Be kind " Many on the right deliberately use the word "woke" as a perjorative. So if I and a number of others said we found the word woke offensive and suggested that you should use the word respectful instead would you comply? I'd see that kind of demand as approaching a form of Orwellian Newspeak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't that exactly what you are doing with the language? Your multiple threads where you tell other people what the words women and cis-woman must mean is you telling other people what they must think or do. But that’s not what I’ve done here. In my opening post I explicitly asked people to present data-driven arguments so I could understand the reasoning behind their views. So far, no one has. What I keep getting instead are feelings framed as facts. And the only anti-trans argument I’ve seen that actually withstands scrutiny is, “I just don’t like it.” That’s not contempt; it’s observation. When I say things don’t align, that’s what I mean — the claims and the evidence don’t match. As for “lived reality,” calling it private doesn’t make it irrelevant. Every social or legal protection — from disability access to maternity rights — is grounded in lived realities that others may not personally experience. Trans existence is no different: it’s documented, studied, and legislated for. The law doesn’t need to read minds to recognise that." I'll apologise now if this is covered a little further down the thread, I'm catching up and this is where I am! What would you describe as 'data driven'? That would exclude any polling and any measures or reporting that have changed scope or range since the reporting began e.g. crime or incident reporting stats. That's a genuine question as I think if there is viable data, it would make an interesting addition to the debate. Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? Absolutely everyone should have the dame rights. As for your beliefs you are free to have them and express them, and they are equally protected as anyone else's belief. As for the issue of Cis, I'm not sure who I'm addressing her, so I'll voice it like this. So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. If I know accept that I am a cis woman then I am agreeing to there being subsets of woman, something you said there shouldn't be. So what changed for you and do you now believe there should be sunsets? Mrs x I believe you were the one who introduced subsets into the discussion. I believe everyone is human and has a valid reason for aligning or not with the biological sex they were assigned at birth. What has age got to do with anything? " It hasn't tgats the other poster who said that, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many on the right deliberately use the word "woke" as a perjorative. So if I and a number of others said we found the word woke offensive and suggested that you should use the word respectful instead would you comply? I'd see that kind of demand as approaching a form of Orwellian Newspeak." Of course there’s a big difference between the two. The people who use woke as a pejorative generally mean it as shorthand for “something I don’t like.” Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. It isn’t used as a synonym for contempt; it’s used for clarity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And this is where perspective comes in. Available data regarding hate crimes, Inc trans tagged incidents is hugely skewed from 5 yrs ago. In this period the number of options for specifying the type of hate in a police complaint has gone from 5 to over 20, driving more individual recorded cases for some demographics. Press coverage depends on the outlet and the perceived prevailing 'mood' of the majority. Across the media I see, the coverage has become more neutral and less pro trans. The number of polls showing opinions about trans rights having gone too far will partly be in response to the previous swing the other way. I'd also be interested to see the wording of the polls as they are usually designed to be polarising in language to generate an identified preference. In any social or cultural movement , the more visible it is, the more it will polarise opinion. In regard to misgendering, I'd be pretty annoyed if it became law that I had to address anyone by a specified set of pronouns. If I met a trans person and they requested I use a specific pronoun, I'd be happy to, as a matter of courtesy. The moment your society is telling you how you must behave, you're on a slippery slope. As a side note, permanent change in society isn't usually driven by governments, or the media. It's driven by individuals acting the right way, and outweighing individuals acting the wrong way. For me, it doesn't matter what the media/gov says, it matters how the people and organisations I encounter interact with me. In any change like this, there will always be people on both sides who need to shout louder and be more extreme to feel relevant. I can see an element of truth in what you’re saying about reporting changes — but there’s more to it. A case only receives the hate crime label if police consider it to meet that threshold, and in practice many incidents get downgraded to other offences. I can’t speak for every force, but I know for certain that happens within East Sussex Police. So while improved reporting plays a role, it doesn’t explain the full increase. This is undoubtedly true, reporting can be skewed both up and down by the way it's flagged. There are around a dozen terms that didn't exist 5 years ago, so it would be fair to say that will impact the reporting. I'd hope it's also fair to say that more trans people will feel more comfortable reporting a hate crime today than 5 years ago, just because there is a higher degree of visibility around the issue, possibly the 1 upside of the volume of media coverage. As for the media, I agree that tone depends on outlet and perceived audience mood. But that’s exactly the problem — coverage has shifted to reflect and reinforce a negative public narrative. I don't see this as imbalanced. I think the see saw has shifted a couple of times and currently there's more media around the response of non-trans people to the amount of issues being raised and debated either by, or on behalf of the trans community. Studies show the number of trans-related stories has risen sharply, while the framing has grown more critical. Maybe I notice it more keenly as a trans person, but the sheer volume and tone are hard to ignore. If the volume of media about tall Danish people went up, I'd notice it more than others would. It's human nature to say 'is that about me?'. And to be clear, no trans person I know has ever argued that pronoun use should be legally enforced. What most of us ask for is what you described — a little courtesy. Listening and treating others respectfully shouldn’t need to be legislated. Absolutely, and being honest this is something being taken up on behalf of the trans community. The intention is probably good, but all that particular argument is doing is pushing reasonable people with both views further apart. Finally, I agree that visibility polarises. But social norms aren’t automatically right just because they’re common. The way trans people are treated now mirrors how gay men were vilified during the AIDS crisis — and most people today recognise that was unjust. The hope is we learn from that history rather than repeat it." That's a good point, and one I agree with. It's not about common always being right, it's about how good behaviour used to be driven through law, structure, culture and the media. Now, these same tools have less and less to do with morals and ideals and more to do with profit and popularity. I'd be interested to know how the proposed law changes and talking point were decided on? Did some of the trans community have input or was it all decided as 'its best for them' by people who don't know what the outcome would actually be for someone living that life? I can see the potential for this thread to get very 'fan forum'! I'd be interested to know, what you would like as a trans person? Do you actually want anything to change legally or structurally, or do you just want respect as a human being to live your life while respecting others living their differently? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? Absolutely everyone should have the dame rights. As for your beliefs you are free to have them and express them, and they are equally protected as anyone else's belief. As for the issue of Cis, I'm not sure who I'm addressing her, so I'll voice it like this. So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. If I know accept that I am a cis woman then I am agreeing to there being subsets of woman, something you said there shouldn't be. So what changed for you and do you now believe there should be sunsets? Mrs x I believe you were the one who introduced subsets into the discussion. I believe everyone is human and has a valid reason for aligning or not with the biological sex they were assigned at birth. What has age got to do with anything? It hasn't tgats the other poster who said that, Mrs x" So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. ________ Your words, I believe?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. " Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ " Some people don't consider trans men to be men and trans women to be women 🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ Some people don't consider trans men to be men and trans women to be women 🤷" They're not, they're TRANS men and TRANS women 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because you don't believe it to be pejorative doesn't mean that others don't. For example, I don't find the word "tranny" to be offensive, but many do, so I no longer use it to describe my fellow trannies Be kind Many on the right deliberately use the word "woke" as a perjorative. So if I and a number of others said we found the word woke offensive and suggested that you should use the word respectful instead would you comply? I'd see that kind of demand as approaching a form of Orwellian Newspeak." If enough people decide that the word "woke" is offensive then yes, of course I would stop using it. I am adaptable regarding language - I speak 5 languages fluently and am aware of "street use" changes. You may see it as "Orwellian" but I wouldn't, I would see it simply as progression of language. You and I are different people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's a good point, and one I agree with. It's not about common always being right, it's about how good behaviour used to be driven through law, structure, culture and the media. Now, these same tools have less and less to do with morals and ideals and more to do with profit and popularity. I'd be interested to know how the proposed law changes and talking point were decided on? Did some of the trans community have input or was it all decided as 'its best for them' by people who don't know what the outcome would actually be for someone living that life? I can see the potential for this thread to get very 'fan forum'! I'd be interested to know, what you would like as a trans person? Do you actually want anything to change legally or structurally, or do you just want respect as a human being to live your life while respecting others living their differently? " That’s a fair and thoughtful question, and I appreciate it being asked in good faith. To your point about consultation — one of the things that’s deeply frustrated many in the trans community is that, during the EHRC guidance process and the Supreme Court case that led into it, trans-led organisations weren’t invited to give evidence. Gender-critical groups were openly consulted, but trans equality bodies weren’t. Even the later public consultation raised concerns. The EHRC has confirmed it used AI tools to process over 50,000 responses, and advocacy groups like We Are QueerAF have questioned whether that meant some trans-led submissions were summarised or overlooked. There’s no proof of deliberate filtering, but there’s also no transparency about how those AI summaries were verified or weighted. So from our side, it doesn’t just feel like decisions were made for us — it feels like they were made about us, without us. As for what I want personally, it’s not sweeping new laws — most of the protections already exist under the Equality Act. What I want is consistency in how those protections are applied, and a bit of honesty in the debate. Trans people don’t want special treatment; we just want the law, the media, and everyday life to treat us with the same fairness and dignity everyone else expects. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ Some people don't consider trans men to be men and trans women to be women 🤷 They're not, they're TRANS men and TRANS women 🤷♂️" Put the emphasis on the man and woman, instead of trans and we'll be in agreement 🌈 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listen stop being a stubborn guy. It's the same as not using the word 'Fat' as a descriptor on a Weight watchers forum. It's not about the legitimacy of the word, whether its an accurate description, its more about morals, consideration and respect but I'll expect you to ask for the scientific definitions of these immeasurable qualities. Maybe its because I'm not a guy that I can understand such things. Mrs x You’re shifting the question again. I asked for evidence from any credible source — it doesn’t have to be LGBTQIA+, just not explicitly anti-trans — that supports your claim that cis shouldn’t be used. None have been provided. Comparing cis to calling someone fat on a diet forum isn’t equivalent. One is a neutral descriptive adjective recognised in law, medicine, and linguistics worldwide; the other is a personal comment that carries clear social judgment. Morals and respect absolutely matter — but respect has to work both ways. If someone dislikes cis, I’m open to alternatives, provided they’re equally clear and descriptive. What I can’t do is abandon a neutral, evidence-based term simply because some dislike what it represents. That isn’t respect; that’s erasure. So again: if you can show me a credible, non-anti-trans source advising against the word, I’ll happily read it. Otherwise, we’re back to belief, not evidence." None of these quotes can be attributed to any Anti- trans movement. *Hida Viloria said: "Earlier this month, two intersex blog posts about the term “cisgender” reminded me that it’s high time we talk about how current cisgender rhetoric facilitates intersex erasure. But wait, how does it do that? you might be asking. I thought cisgender was the new rage in progressive gender terminology?" Hida Viloria, an Intersex Author and Human Right Activist. *Cary Gabriel Costello said: "The intersex friends of mine who mentioned being drawn to “gender critical feminism” were particularly attracted by the fact that these feminists were critical of the term “cis gender.”" Trans Advocate, Cary Costello PHd. *Julie Bindell, a British, lesbian , feminist journalist wrote : “I reject the term cis because it is a label applied to women like me without consent. I’m not ‘cis’, I’m a woman — that’s all. The label was invented by people who wish to redefine womanhood.” The Spectator, 2019 "Bindel’s critique represents a broader feminist view that “cis” was introduced from activist or academic spaces and imposed on women who don’t identify with it. The concern is less about the word’s intent and more about loss of linguistic self-determination." *Bev Jackson (LGB Alliance co-founder) “Terms like ‘cis’ create unnecessary divisions in the LGB community. We fought for the right to be seen as ordinary men and women — not reclassified under new ideological categories.” Bev Jackson, interview, 2021 Jackson's view represents a strand of thought among some LGB activists who view “cis” as divisive within shared liberation movements. So is that enough to demonstrate that the term "cis" is normal universally like in the LGBT community. There is lots more stuff criticising the word CIS. All this outside of the Gender Critical theory, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ " Nothing, and according to the definition of "Cis" thats exactly what has to happen... NOTHING, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If enough people decide that the word "woke" is offensive then yes, of course I would stop using it. I am adaptable regarding language - I speak 5 languages fluently and am aware of "street use" changes. You may see it as "Orwellian" but I wouldn't, I would see it simply as progression of language. You and I are different people." The extremely important point that Orwell made in 1984 was that by strictly controlling and reducing vocabulary, thoughts that are deemed to be undesirable can no longer be expressed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? Absolutely everyone should have the dame rights. As for your beliefs you are free to have them and express them, and they are equally protected as anyone else's belief. As for the issue of Cis, I'm not sure who I'm addressing her, so I'll voice it like this. So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. If I know accept that I am a cis woman then I am agreeing to there being subsets of woman, something you said there shouldn't be. So what changed for you and do you now believe there should be sunsets? Mrs x I believe you were the one who introduced subsets into the discussion. I believe everyone is human and has a valid reason for aligning or not with the biological sex they were assigned at birth. What has age got to do with anything? It hasn't tgats the other poster who said that, Mrs x So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. ________ Your words, I believe?! " I do apologise, I thought you were referring the the physical characteristics the other poster mistook for a subset. The ages I mention 44 and 50, would correspond to your own age before the word Cis entered the dictionary. So I was asking what you considered yourself to be before this. Thats why I mentioned age. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ Nothing, and according to the definition of "Cis" thats exactly what has to happen... NOTHING, Mrs x" Nothing is happening to women. It's a descriptor. That's all. If you see it as something more sinister, please, explain! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None of these quotes can be attributed to any Anti- trans movement. *Hida Viloria said: "Earlier this month, two intersex blog posts about the term “cisgender” reminded me that it’s high time we talk about how current cisgender rhetoric facilitates intersex erasure. But wait, how does it do that? you might be asking. I thought cisgender was the new rage in progressive gender terminology?" Hida Viloria, an Intersex Author and Human Right Activist. *Cary Gabriel Costello said: "The intersex friends of mine who mentioned being drawn to “gender critical feminism” were particularly attracted by the fact that these feminists were critical of the term “cis gender.”" Trans Advocate, Cary Costello PHd. *Julie Bindell, a British, lesbian , feminist journalist wrote : “I reject the term cis because it is a label applied to women like me without consent. I’m not ‘cis’, I’m a woman — that’s all. The label was invented by people who wish to redefine womanhood.” The Spectator, 2019 "Bindel’s critique represents a broader feminist view that “cis” was introduced from activist or academic spaces and imposed on women who don’t identify with it. The concern is less about the word’s intent and more about loss of linguistic self-determination." *Bev Jackson (LGB Alliance co-founder) “Terms like ‘cis’ create unnecessary divisions in the LGB community. We fought for the right to be seen as ordinary men and women — not reclassified under new ideological categories.” Bev Jackson, interview, 2021 Jackson's view represents a strand of thought among some LGB activists who view “cis” as divisive within shared liberation movements. So is that enough to demonstrate that the term "cis" is normal universally like in the LGBT community. There is lots more stuff criticising the word CIS. All this outside of the Gender Critical theory, Mrs x " You listed several people as critics of cis, but their contexts matter: – Hida Viloria is intersex and has written about how cisgender can sometimes obscure intersex experiences. That’s not an argument against the term itself — it’s a call to recognise intersex people more distinctly within gender discussions. Viloria doesn’t reject cis; they object to being misclassified under it. – Cary Gabriel Costello, another intersex scholar, has noted that some intersex people are drawn to gender-critical spaces because those spaces challenge labels like cis, not because he personally opposes the term. In fact, Costello’s own writing advocates for trans and intersex inclusion, not against it. – Julie Bindel and Bev Jackson are both prominent figures in the gender-critical movement. Jackson co-founded the LGB Alliance — an organisation whose mission statement explicitly says it was created to oppose Stonewall’s trans-inclusive policies. That makes it, by definition, an anti-trans group. Their objections to cis reflect that ideological position, not a neutral or community-wide stance. So while some of your examples raise interesting nuance, they don’t demonstrate a broad LGBTQIA+ rejection of the word. They show a handful of ideological or contextual critiques, most of which are about framing — not meaning. If people object to a term, the test shouldn’t be who objects the loudest; it should be what the evidence shows. So far, no one has produced: – a recognised LGBTQIA+ organisation advising against “cis”; – a linguistic authority (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Collins) marking it as offensive; – or a legal or medical body recommending its removal. If any of those exist, I’ll happily read them. But citing ideological writers isn’t evidence of consensus. And if “offence” becomes the reason to ban words, that principle quickly unravels. By that same logic, would it be reasonable for someone of an Abrahamic faith to demand that atheists stop saying “there is no God,” or for scientists to stop describing evolution as fact because it offends a belief? Should flat-Earthers insist that geographers stop calling the planet round, or climate-change deniers tell meteorologists to avoid saying “global warming”? Freedom of belief doesn’t mean freedom from hearing things you disagree with. It means we can all speak from our own frameworks — faith, science, or lived experience — without forcing others to conform to a single worldview. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x I have a data-driven belief system. You have a data-excluding ideology. And your argument rather proves my point. There are countless subsets of men and women — by age, by height, by fitness, by attraction, by social role, by culture. Yet the only subset you object to is the one that includes trans people. That’s not about clarity; that’s about discomfort with inclusion." Translation: You're wrong, I'm right, so your feelings don't really count. And you wonder why people get upset. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ Nothing, and according to the definition of "Cis" thats exactly what has to happen... NOTHING, Mrs x Nothing is happening to women. It's a descriptor. That's all. If you see it as something more sinister, please, explain! " I'm not sure why you are asking me to explain. I mentioned about not identifying with being a subset of woman, something you said was wrong. So does that mean you've changed your mind and if you have could you explain! why please? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? Absolutely everyone should have the dame rights. As for your beliefs you are free to have them and express them, and they are equally protected as anyone else's belief. As for the issue of Cis, I'm not sure who I'm addressing her, so I'll voice it like this. So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. If I know accept that I am a cis woman then I am agreeing to there being subsets of woman, something you said there shouldn't be. So what changed for you and do you now believe there should be sunsets? Mrs x I believe you were the one who introduced subsets into the discussion. I believe everyone is human and has a valid reason for aligning or not with the biological sex they were assigned at birth. What has age got to do with anything? It hasn't tgats the other poster who said that, Mrs x So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. ________ Your words, I believe?! I do apologise, I thought you were referring the the physical characteristics the other poster mistook for a subset. The ages I mention 44 and 50, would correspond to your own age before the word Cis entered the dictionary. So I was asking what you considered yourself to be before this. Thats why I mentioned age. Mrs x" It may have entered the dictionary at that point in time, that doesn't mean it wasn't being used earlier than that. And, as been pointed out, several times, it has been used. You are roughly in the same age range. Agreed? How did you feel in the 80s when gay rights were being expressed? How are trans rights any different? They are not the majority, probably never will be, but same with gay and bi people. Oh. Wait. The percentage of gay/lesbian/non binary has doubled from 2015 to the most up to date statistics. 2013. Why would that be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has existed and still exists, Cis is irrelevant, only got into the dictionary in 2015 and has nothing to do with Trans people. The dictionary definition doesn't describe a difference between Trans woman and woman. It describes a position of 'state'. “Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to his or her sex at birth...” Oxford Dictionary. So no mention of comparison, its purely about reaching maturity and still feeling the same as you did at birth. So youre now an adult, nothings happened, nothing is changed, so whats the reasoning behind using this prefix... NOTHING. It's only used because Trans people dont want to be made to feel they are not 'normal', as Defossey stated. Mrs x It truly baffles me, and many others, how a simple adjective can be seen as offensive. Cis just describes someone whose gender matches their natal sex, the same way trans describes someone whose gender doesn’t. I once read that people who find cis offensive often do so because they’ve learned to see trans as a slur. When both words are treated equally, that hierarchy disappears — and sometimes it’s the equality itself that feels uncomfortable.I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x You're right in one respect. There should not be subsets - everyone is human and therefore should enjoy the same rights. Personally, I don't believe a trans man is a woman. I believe they are a man. I am perfectly happy to use the term cis to describe myself. I really don't see an issue with it. Realistically, if a trans person passes in their gender of choice, how would you even know if they were trans or not? Absolutely everyone should have the dame rights. As for your beliefs you are free to have them and express them, and they are equally protected as anyone else's belief. As for the issue of Cis, I'm not sure who I'm addressing her, so I'll voice it like this. So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. If I know accept that I am a cis woman then I am agreeing to there being subsets of woman, something you said there shouldn't be. So what changed for you and do you now believe there should be sunsets? Mrs x I believe you were the one who introduced subsets into the discussion. I believe everyone is human and has a valid reason for aligning or not with the biological sex they were assigned at birth. What has age got to do with anything? It hasn't tgats the other poster who said that, Mrs x So for either the first 44 or 50 years of your life how did you identify? Were you simply a woman or a man and then something changed? Did you feel something was missing from how you defined yourself and if so did you protest for change? Also when did you become aware of tge word Cis and its meaning? I ask all this because for the first 47 years of my life I always considered myself to be a woman. I still consider myself to be a woman. ________ Your words, I believe?! I do apologise, I thought you were referring the the physical characteristics the other poster mistook for a subset. The ages I mention 44 and 50, would correspond to your own age before the word Cis entered the dictionary. So I was asking what you considered yourself to be before this. Thats why I mentioned age. Mrs x It may have entered the dictionary at that point in time, that doesn't mean it wasn't being used earlier than that. And, as been pointed out, several times, it has been used. You are roughly in the same age range. Agreed? How did you feel in the 80s when gay rights were being expressed? How are trans rights any different? They are not the majority, probably never will be, but same with gay and bi people. Oh. Wait. The percentage of gay/lesbian/non binary has doubled from 2015 to the most up to date statistics. 2013. Why would that be? " OK before 1994, would that help? So what were you before then? How did I feel in the 80s about gay rights? Have you looked at our profile? I was probably feeling how I am now, eating pussy and sucking cock because I am bisexual. All for gay rights, since I'm part of the LGBT community, are you a member? And have you ever seen anywhere were I have posted anything against Trans rights, Im all for them. Hope that answers all you questions. Do you fancy having a go at answering mine? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe its offensive because those that use it do so to 'classify' different types of woman. That means there are subsets of men and woman and I don't believe there are. It's nothing to do with seeing Trans as a slur, I just dont believe that its based in reality. You say when both terms are treated equally then that's when a hierarchy disappears. But I dont believe that because we are not the same. Trans woman are men, woman are woman and the same for men and Trans men. You have your ideology and I have my beliefs, both of which are equal in one sense and that is the protection they are afforded under the Equality Act. Mrs x I have a data-driven belief system. You have a data-excluding ideology. And your argument rather proves my point. There are countless subsets of men and women — by age, by height, by fitness, by attraction, by social role, by culture. Yet the only subset you object to is the one that includes trans people. That’s not about clarity; that’s about discomfort with inclusion. Translation: You're wrong, I'm right, so your feelings don't really count. And you wonder why people get upset." Please dont, you'll just be asked to provide a 5,000 word thesis about this, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For someone who states elsewhere on this thread that you have a data driven belief system, maybe you should consider that if over 5 years the number of trans people has doubled, then it is hardly surprising that hate crimes might have doubled accordingly. It may also be the case that those individuals have been far readier to complain or far more sensitive to a perceived sleight. This doesn't only manifest in the trans community: as a police liaison rep, in the last year there has been a massive (tenfold) increase in sexual crimes, but when I have quizzed the area inspector she stated that Home Office rules mean that those stats now include any slants on social media (I understand that the Home Office is actively using Palantir software across Facebook to monitor NCHIs) and these are being reported - incorrectly in my humble opinion - as crimes. One sleepy local village of less than 400 inhabitants saw over 10 sex and violent crimes being reported, scaring the wits out of its elderly folk. You are correct in saying that sequential opinion polls are showing a marginal "hardening" of attitudes regarding use of toilets and changing rooms by trans. But those same polls suggest consistently that most people don't actually give a shit whether you're trans. As it happens we as a hetero couple can perhaps quite uniquely say that we have a close persoanl friend who is transitioning. We don't honestly understand it, but we value that person as a close friend and trans doesn't come into it. Fascinating — I wasn’t aware of any data suggesting the number of trans people had doubled in the past five years. If you have a source for that, I’d genuinely like to read it — I’m always keen to look at new data and see how it fits into the broader picture. And just to clarify, I haven’t said I think the general public has become more hostile. I actually agree that most people still take an each to their own view. What I’ve been referring to is the shift in public discourse — the way politicians, parts of the media, and certain online spaces have turned trans issues into a flashpoint. That’s the “hardening” I’m talking about: not people’s private attitudes, but the rhetoric that shapes how the public talks about us." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministry-of-justice-gen-z-equality-and-human-rights-commission-b2770553.html You can also look at the number of gender dysphoria referral stats which show a similar increase. You'll have to wait until the 2031 census for any ONS data. And a reflection: our friend is a 23 year old male in the process of transitioning (hormone and psychiatric assessment complete, surgery set for late 2026). He/she doesn't make a song and dance of it, though does use the ladies toilet - built like a brick shit house so you can understand the wary glances from the ladies present. My wife has taken exception when he/she has said "women like us" (no you have never menstruated and never will, nor likely to give birth). But otherwise he/she draws no attention to herself. Maybe the trans community could do itself a big favour by adopting a less confrontational approach? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministry-of-justice-gen-z-equality-and-human-rights-commission-b2770553.html You can also look at the number of gender dysphoria referral stats which show a similar increase. You'll have to wait until the 2031 census for any ONS data. And a reflection: our friend is a 23 year old male in the process of transitioning (hormone and psychiatric assessment complete, surgery set for late 2026). He/she doesn't make a song and dance of it, though does use the ladies toilet - built like a brick shit house so you can understand the wary glances from the ladies present. My wife has taken exception when he/she has said "women like us" (no you have never menstruated and never will, nor likely to give birth). But otherwise he/she draws no attention to herself. Maybe the trans community could do itself a big favour by adopting a less confrontational approach? " Thank you for that data. It’s interesting, but a rise in applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate isn’t a reliable indicator of a rise in trans people overall. The only times a GRC is actually needed are for things like changing birth certificates, death certificates, or marriage certificates. The majority of trans people never apply for one at all. Referral numbers aren’t a clean proxy either. A rise can just as easily reflect reduced stigma, better GP awareness, and more accurate diagnosis — not necessarily a population increase. When barriers drop, reporting rises. It’s like the so-called “explosion” of left-handed people once schools stopped forcing them to write with their right hand. The numbers didn’t suddenly surge; people just stopped hiding. And I’d argue that trans people aren’t “making a fuss” — we’re reacting to a culture war that’s being waged about us, not by us. Visibility and pushback aren’t provocation; they’re survival. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You didnt see the post were I gave you information about the LGBT community criticising the term CIS then? Mrs x" Scroll up a bit — I already covered that, including who your sources were and why they don’t actually argue against using cis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cisgender, on the other hand, is used consistently to mean exactly what it defines — someone whose gender aligns with their natal sex. Again, whats wrong with good old MAN and WOMAN 🤷♂️ Some people don't consider trans men to be men and trans women to be women 🤷 They're not, they're TRANS men and TRANS women 🤷♂️ Put the emphasis on the man and woman, instead of trans and we'll be in agreement 🌈" I'm don't understand? There are men, women, trans men and trans women. It's all very simple 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Serious question When is a cis woman not a woman ?" For 99% of circumstances, never. The only time a distinction is relevant is in specific contexts — like medicine, sociology, or law — where clarity about trans and cis experiences actually matters. Outside those contexts, woman works just fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You didnt see the post were I gave you information about the LGBT community criticising the term CIS then? Mrs x Scroll up a bit — I already covered that, including who your sources were and why they don’t actually argue against using cis." So by your logic preferred pronouns have no need to followed by those whose beliefs differ from those with the preferred pro ouns, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK before 1994, would that help? So what were you before then? How did I feel in the 80s about gay rights? Have you looked at our profile? I was probably feeling how I am now, eating pussy and sucking cock because I am bisexual. All for gay rights, since I'm part of the LGBT community, are you a member? And have you ever seen anywhere were I have posted anything against Trans rights, Im all for them. Hope that answers all you questions. Do you fancy having a go at answering mine? Mrs x" If you are all for trans rights then your frequent posting on the subject don't seem to make much sense. If your insistence that trans women are men and trans men are women is purely linguistic or philosophical then we can just agree to disagree, but if this insistence translates into promoting polices that have a practical negative impact on an embattled minority it's different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministry-of-justice-gen-z-equality-and-human-rights-commission-b2770553.html You can also look at the number of gender dysphoria referral stats which show a similar increase. You'll have to wait until the 2031 census for any ONS data. And a reflection: our friend is a 23 year old male in the process of transitioning (hormone and psychiatric assessment complete, surgery set for late 2026). He/she doesn't make a song and dance of it, though does use the ladies toilet - built like a brick shit house so you can understand the wary glances from the ladies present. My wife has taken exception when he/she has said "women like us" (no you have never menstruated and never will, nor likely to give birth). But otherwise he/she draws no attention to herself. Maybe the trans community could do itself a big favour by adopting a less confrontational approach? Thank you for that data. It’s interesting, but a rise in applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate isn’t a reliable indicator of a rise in trans people overall. The only times a GRC is actually needed are for things like changing birth certificates, death certificates, or marriage certificates. The majority of trans people never apply for one at all. Referral numbers aren’t a clean proxy either. A rise can just as easily reflect reduced stigma, better GP awareness, and more accurate diagnosis — not necessarily a population increase. When barriers drop, reporting rises. It’s like the so-called “explosion” of left-handed people once schools stopped forcing them to write with their right hand. The numbers didn’t suddenly surge; people just stopped hiding. And I’d argue that trans people aren’t “making a fuss” — we’re reacting to a culture war that’s being waged about us, not by us. Visibility and pushback aren’t provocation; they’re survival." So to suit your own ends and your own "data driven belief system" you'd rather diss and ignore the only data that is available? I'd suggest that you have an Oedipean failure to see the blindingly obvious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK before 1994, would that help? So what were you before then? How did I feel in the 80s about gay rights? Have you looked at our profile? I was probably feeling how I am now, eating pussy and sucking cock because I am bisexual. All for gay rights, since I'm part of the LGBT community, are you a member? And have you ever seen anywhere were I have posted anything against Trans rights, Im all for them. Hope that answers all you questions. Do you fancy having a go at answering mine? Mrs x If you are all for trans rights then your frequent posting on the subject don't seem to make much sense. If your insistence that trans women are men and trans men are women is purely linguistic or philosophical then we can just agree to disagree, but if this insistence translates into promoting polices that have a practical negative impact on an embattled minority it's different. " I can have a belief about what makes a woman and what makes a man, without negating any rights for Trans people. Everyone is human and deserves the same rights and protections. That doesn't mean we are all the same but I have nothing against anyone calling themselves what they want or identifying how they please. And how have I ever promoted policies to embattle anyone, Mike write or not? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So by your logic preferred pronouns have no need to followed by those whose beliefs differ from those with the preferred pro ouns, Mrs x" I was following your logic train, but here’s mine. I don’t like it when people misgender me or use the wrong pronouns, but I don’t make a big deal about it. That said, there’s a difference between someone’s pronouns and the use of cis. Pronouns are for common use — they refer to an individual’s identity. Cis is different; it’s used generically when talking about types of women. Even if someone denies that trans women are women, the term still works grammatically and descriptively. It’s about clarity, not ideology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
