There's no such thing as "cis" women. There are women and there are men. Some women and men are confused about their sex/gender and/or feel very uncomfortable in their bodies. "Cis" was a term coined by a warped sexologist who argued that even pedophilia wasn't inherently wrong: https://reduxx.info/cis-coined-by-pedosexual-physician/
I like effective communication and it’s obvious I communicated exactly and parsimoniously what I meant to say and you understood, instead of having to go through the whole rigamarole of stating assigned at birth or explaining the trans point of view. Why so hung up on a word that doesn’t purport to deny sexual anatomy?
Obviously trans minded people are quite aware of the bodies they are “trapped “ in. The problem is of course located in the brain, not the phenotype.
Are you serious? Feelings don’t exist unless they can be verbalized?
I guess homosexuality wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t talked about or, anything else for that matter.
Of course it’s virtually impossible to parse language from human thought or behavior. When people can’t find words for their impulses or suffering it only magnifies the helplessness and anguish.
People can express distress without trying to change the meaning of words. "Cis women" suggests that actual women are but one kind; that in fact men can also be women. But if that's the case, then "woman" doesn't mean anything. That some men experience distress being men shouldn't require us to speak of their experience in terms that deny reality and objective truth.
Yes, cis women are “one kind” - the kind that don’t claim to identify as trans women It’s a useful designator, the antonym to being a trans woman.
I suggest you reread your linked article where thie need for this semantic differentiation was explained. It is neutral as to the validity of the claim of being trans, it simply identifies the two sides of the coin of contention.
Nobody has any definitive explanation what goes on in the head of sexually dysphoric individuals. It appears you have a well founded certainty on this subject. Present your evidence for peer review and enjoy your Nobel.
So if a cis woman claims to be a trans woman, are you saying we shouldn't believe her ??? On what basis do we have to reject her claim? It's not like anyone has a definitive explanation for what goes on in her head.
There's no such thing as "cis" women. There are women and there are men. Some women and men are confused about their sex/gender and/or feel very uncomfortable in their bodies. "Cis" was a term coined by a warped sexologist who argued that even pedophilia wasn't inherently wrong: https://reduxx.info/cis-coined-by-pedosexual-physician/
I like effective communication and it’s obvious I communicated exactly and parsimoniously what I meant to say and you understood, instead of having to go through the whole rigamarole of stating assigned at birth or explaining the trans point of view. Why so hung up on a word that doesn’t purport to deny sexual anatomy?
Obviously trans minded people are quite aware of the bodies they are “trapped “ in. The problem is of course located in the brain, not the phenotype.
Because the manipulation of language is how we got to this point.
Are you serious? Feelings don’t exist unless they can be verbalized?
I guess homosexuality wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t talked about or, anything else for that matter.
Of course it’s virtually impossible to parse language from human thought or behavior. When people can’t find words for their impulses or suffering it only magnifies the helplessness and anguish.
People can express distress without trying to change the meaning of words. "Cis women" suggests that actual women are but one kind; that in fact men can also be women. But if that's the case, then "woman" doesn't mean anything. That some men experience distress being men shouldn't require us to speak of their experience in terms that deny reality and objective truth.
Yes, cis women are “one kind” - the kind that don’t claim to identify as trans women It’s a useful designator, the antonym to being a trans woman.
I suggest you reread your linked article where thie need for this semantic differentiation was explained. It is neutral as to the validity of the claim of being trans, it simply identifies the two sides of the coin of contention.
Nobody has any definitive explanation what goes on in the head of sexually dysphoric individuals. It appears you have a well founded certainty on this subject. Present your evidence for peer review and enjoy your Nobel.
So if a cis woman claims to be a trans woman, are you saying we shouldn't believe her ??? On what basis do we have to reject her claim? It's not like anyone has a definitive explanation for what goes on in her head.