Gender ideology - What's up with cis, sis?

Gender ideology - What's up with cis, sis? 

There's an underhand strategy being pushed under a 'pro-trans' banner in the media, in public discourse, equality and diversity training and increasingly into our private conversations.

It is that everything not completely in line with current, but constantly evolving, doctrine is hate. If you disagree that we should treat gender as a more important descriptor than biological sex, and allow anyone to self identify into a protected class, you are transphobic. 

If you are cautious of affirmation models; of not examining possible underlying causes of dysphoria; of puberty blockers; radical mastectomies for 14 yr olds or allowing males who identify as trans to play alongside, compete against, biological women, you are transphobic.

No debate.

Get over it.

The words I've used above are transphobic. I should have said 'cis', not biological, women. My use of biology as a descriptor is transphobic. It's exclusionary. It's informed by hatred. I've used wrongthink and spilled it out in words I'm forbidden from using. I have recklessly and probably maliciously used identifiers that are physically manifest and as such cause pain. 

I've done so out of pure spite. People can tell this about me, from a single sentence.

But we're told 'cis' is an equivalent, neater way of speaking - 'just like in chemistry' which err, I don't think is known because of said people studying chemistry, but from people reading those opinion pieces loaded with quick, smart-sounding ripostes to circumvent those pesky thought processes which get in the way of total allegiance.

So, if using a different, but supposedly equivalent, term is hateful, we have to go back to those definitions and what we want to articulate again. 

Why do so many women object to being called cis? And what is wrong with speaking in terms which reflect manifest reality, not subjective, unobservable feelings?

I refuse to use cis as a descriptor because women are not a subset of our own sex, and I reject gender stereotypes rather than conform to or feel correctly classified by them. I do not have a gender identity, and the expectations imposed on me since my birth do not correspond to my internal perception of myself. I do not align with them, I don't measure myself (or anyone) based on this shit. No. Fuck off and try something else - hopefully (for you) with more intelligence and coherence.

This idea of gender - it's founded on cultural, sex-based stereotypes. It doesn't, it cannot, change the most fundamental fact about who I am in the physical realm though: female. A woman, who was once a girl. 

This has had the most profound effect on my life, more than any other categorisation (sexuality, disability, even class and education), and via multiple measures; 
My socialisation, boundaries, my instincts, consequences and perception. It's impacted how the police, judiciary and employers have treated me, it's made huge difference to my medical treatment. It has some benefits and many drawbacks. 

If for not my girl and womanhood, my female biology, I would likely not have been seen to be 'saved' by predatory men from a young age, 'won' - claimed by, worn down by those who became my partners. Little boys don't grow up with these ideas. 

I wouldn't have been the clear target in the way I was. I doubt I'd be sexually harassed, targeted and assaulted to the extent I was - cat-called as a 12 yr old by adult men; sexually assaulted in the crowded stairwell of a new year's eve rave; raped by a good looking man, then trying to rationalise that his good looks made somehow it ok - he'd chosen me; falling prey to a dedicated stalker who wanted to rape me.

If I had been regardless, it likely would have occurred under a different web of mindfucks. In childhood and beyond, I wouldn't have been conditioned to tone it down so much, to accommodate, watch my manners, to be diplomatic to abusers. I wouldn't have needed to learn how to circumvent the pervy men, the ones who want to talk over me, or how to outwit because I can only rarely win physically unless I strike first, hard. 

I wouldn't be left years later holding the baby, bearing the scars. I would fear maybe fewer, certainly different threats.

If this isn't about erasing our categories, with their substantial definitions and established borders and boundaries, what's the fuss about? 

I don't go around pointing out trans women are male, or identifying them as other. I try, in my everyday life, to be as polite and welcoming to people as I can and as nonchalant of difference as possible. I don't raise eyebrows, ask for clearer enunciation when someone I'm speaking to has an accent, not unless I actually need to. I don't pointedly stare when seeing someone acting outside of social expectations, I don't make comments about what I percieve the suitability of their dress - I don't go around wanting to highlight differences or single people out. I'm pretty harsh on those who do.

I've spent much of my life aware of how I can, or might, appear to others: from my clumsy scruffiness, the way I tend to say the wrong thing, my unmanageable sweariness, my alcoholism, my awkward, autistic behaviours and labile mood. I know what a stifling bastard of a cross that is to bear, and I am determined not to dump it on the shoulders of others.

But it's not enough. Nothing but complete obedience and conformity (the fucking irony) is enough. 

You can seamlessly change your language as signalled, don't ask why (if you do, instantly accept the explanation, no matter how flimsy or inadequate, and repeat it). Read an article, perhaps angrily denouncing old-speak and learn the arguments against it; 'cis is the opposite of trans in chemistry!' 'brain scans prove the gendered brain' 'trans people are constantly assaulted and murdered'. Reel them off by rote when confronted with it in the wild, before the blocking and reporting, of course.

Most vital of all, ensure you never draw a single distinction between women and transwomen - even when that transwoman is Alex Drummond or Pip Bunce on alternate weekdays, unless you're using cis to describe 'biological women', leaving the trans out of the equation when talking about those kind of 'women'.

And therein lies the problem; women are women. Transwomen are women. 'Biological women' are cis - 'just another category  - like black, lesbian, young or old', so say the hoards of mono-track devotees.

Is, err, is that not a little insulting? Are transwomen as 'woman' as lesbians? Are women of colour only as much 'woman' as transwomen? It doesn't help that the number of racist analogies and comparisons between women of colour and trans identified males is off the chart with gender ideologues, the instant go to.

It also isn't helped by the fact that there's now, once we remove sex from the criterion, no definition of transwoman.

Is a transwoman that shy, quiet and sweet character of the Hailey Cropper prototype? I suspect that's the go-to for many, and certainly was for me once upon a time. But we now have Philip / Pip Bunce, Daniellle Muscato, Alex Drummond and a huge number of sex offenders finding their true gendered being in the bin of mitigation desperation as they are led to court. 

It's only ok to make reference to a 'woman's' trans-ness when remarking on her bravery, vulnerability or some other towering achievement of endurance / oppression. If the transwoman is an offender, you must distance them as much as possible from the main group  - the brave victims. You must not reference their being trans.

Because, what's that gotta do with it?

It's a bizarre, ever-evolving set of rules we are to keep up with. Like giving a pet a bitter pill during endless servings of cocktail sausages, sometimes it appears we're far more concerned with keeping up and being 'good' than we are with thinking critically.  

So, what is this movement? Is this fascism? Is this cultic behaviour? Can we call it mass hysteria?
I'm going to explore this further, starting with It's a Cult