Hi Steve! This is one of the first essays of yours I’ve read in at least a year after dropping off the face of the internet. It’s been a very interesting and disturbing one. I left twitter, TikTok, etc. a long time ago so I miss a lot of these happenings. As someone who’s quite present in my local queer and trans communities, I was absol…
Hi Steve! This is one of the first essays of yours I’ve read in at least a year after dropping off the face of the internet. It’s been a very interesting and disturbing one. I left twitter, TikTok, etc. a long time ago so I miss a lot of these happenings. As someone who’s quite present in my local queer and trans communities, I was absolutely horrified reading the many posts and articles you linked. It definitely confirmed my decision to stay off those circles of the internet, but also gave me a lot of insight into the fear of and opposition to trans people. The behavior you outlined in this article is genuinely abhorrent and also a very accurate representation of the fears I hear cis people expressing. Like exactly. And it was very interesting because this kind of stuff would be so quickly condemned in my personal social circles, so I never understood where all these fears were coming from. I’d like to think that the majority of real trans communities are the same and that the crazies flock to X, but I can’t be sure. I have a question though! At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise? I’m curious!
"At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise?"
Yeah, this is a tricky question. The easy answer is "when they fully pass."
There are lots of trans women who wouldn't have provoked that horrified reaction from the woman in the bathroom because they look like women. Right now, and for many years, there have been trans women using female spaces without causing any problems.
The problem is, the question of whether one passes is VERY subjective. Especially in today's insane climate. There's a whole echo chamber on social media built around convincing people who very clearly don't pass at all that they're Gal Gadot. Plus, there's the whole "trans women don't owe you femininity" wing of trans activism that claims that anybody, even a bearded rugby player with hairy shovels for hands becomes a woman the instant they say they identify as one.
But yeah, the more I think about it, maybe the problem is the whole concept of "passing."
Because the question isn't what you can fool people into believing, the question is what is actually true. Trans women are men who wish to be perceived as women. That's absolutely fine. 95% of the time the way you're perceived is all that really matters. But I think it's a huge mistake to think it's cruel or "transphobic" if there are times when they have to defer to their biology.
So my preferred solution, which some public spaces are already adopting, is to make men's toilets gender-neutral spaces where it's normal to see all "genders" using them, and leave female spaces for females.
Who knows, in a few generations, maybe this would lead to a world where it becomes so normal to see male- and female-presenting people in a single restroom that the concept of gendered spaces fades away on its own. But the testing ground for that should be male spaces, where there is no increased risk caused by mixing. Not female spaces.
"Sex deception is still deception, just as any crime is a crime even if it’s not identified/prosecuted."
Sure, but deceiving people about your sex isn't a crime. And in the majority of cases it would be absolutely ridiculous to treat it as one. Again, 95% of the time, perception is what matters (an obvious exception is sports).
If a guy wants to walk around the world presenting in a stereotypically feminine way, that's up to him. If he fools you, that's not his problem. The problem is managing his interaction with women's spaces.
C'mon Steve, if he fools you, that's not his problem? You got 90% of the way but didn't want to commit to your own views?
Think of Boy's Don't Cry - while the men are the true evil here, it's clear to me the protagonist doesn't get meaningful consent from her partner. Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?
I get that someone can adopt a gender identity of the opposite sex and live without much issue, but it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone's standards to withhold this info to a potential intimate partner, for example. This means passing people can probably get by just fine but the key thing is they do actually need to accept who they are, because that is just reality. You actually can't be something you're not.
“Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?”
I haven’t seen Boys Don’t Cry, so I’m not getting the reference, but people lie all the time. And again, in 95% of cases, it’s not viewed as a crime of any sort.
That doesn’t mean I think lying is okay. But dressing as a woman/man is obviously not lying in the sense that anybody uses the word. Otherwise fancy dress parties would be filled with “liars.” Not to mention the millions of “lies” that would be being told daily by makeup and plastic surgery.
If you’re talking specifically about lying to coerce someone into bed, that’s obviously wrong. But that’s a very specific case that wasn’t under discussion and would fit into the 5% of cases where perception isn’t all that matters.
Really not sure what you’re taking issue with or how you think I’m being inconsistent.
It is not whether he fools someone (btw misgendering some of the activists would say). It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man. I have met “feminine” trans, none convince and the most convincing only gets away with for a couple of minutes at best in close proximity. Distance is hardly a factor in justifying this nonsense. Live their lives and let women live theirs.
“It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man.”
Yes, agreed. But we weren’t discussing this scenario. We were talking about the potential criminality of mistaking a man for a woman.
And even if you believe you’ve never done this (spoiler:you almost certainly have) transition surgeries/hormones are only ever going to get better. There will absolutely be a point when trans women pass most of the time. And the groundwork for that point needs to be laid now.
This makes perfect sense. While I do understand that this may create fear among trans men of violence in male spaces, why should women be the ones to accommodate what trans men think they need?
But the follow on would be what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?
“ what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?”
Just to be clear, I presume you’re meaning trans identifying man here? Not what most people mean when they say trans man?
If so, I’d be a little surprised I guess, but no big deal. Even if this person passed fully as female, I’d be maybe minimally uncomfortable, but that discomfort wouldn’t come with any fear that they’d hurt me or do anything inappropriate.
It’s funny, one of the Reddit posts I saw while researching this was a trans woman raging because his university had designated the men’s as the “inclusive” “all-gender” bathroom and had left the women’s for women.
He had an option, everything was fine, but he could no longer justify invading the women’s.
And exactly how many pass? Almost none. But the clue is in the word, pass. If they also pass as under 18, would they get into minor’s spaces? If you PASS, then you are NOT. Live your life as you please but without forcing others to live their lives according to your self perception.
I don’t know. Nor do you. Largely because trans women who pass, by definition, aren’t read as trans women.
Yes, very obviously trans women are not women. But if a trans woman passes as a woman, then there are certain situations where them living as they please is based on YOUR perception.
There’s a good chance, for example that you’ve passed a trans woman on the street, or even shared a bathroom with one, and felt zero discomfort because you perceived them as a woman. So, and this is a serious question, what do you suggest doing with this person?
I’ve been unequivocal in my support for women’s spaces. And, of course, spaces like prisons and rape shelters and sports are different and should be managed based on sex regardless of presentation. But total absolutism seems silly as well as obviously unenforceable.
I feel no discomfort in meeting or dealing with trans. My non recognition of trans identified males as women is not based on my discomfort levels, as it doesn’t bother me. The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what. At least we agree on the issue of prisons which has always been my main area of concern on the issue, one I had written about prior to setting up substack and possibly won’t return to, anytime soon.
“The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what.”
Again, you can’t possibly know this. It’s like saying you can always tell when someone is lying. By definition, the lies you didn’t detect appear to you to have been truth. So you assume they were true.
Similarly, any women you didn’t detect as trans appeared to be women. So you assumed they were women.
I was about to say the same. I know it's an ancient word that has been used in scientific terms for a very long time but I'm simply a woman. My sexual preference is my own business.
Hi! I am actually a fellow (almost) woman and while I understand where you’re coming from, cis isn’t a derogatory word nor a prefix. It’s just an adjective people use for clarity when trans people are involved in the discussion. It comes from the Latin preposition meaning “on this side of” as opposed to trans which is “the other side of”. The word is not meant to degrade your womanhood any more than adjectives like “white” or “brunette” would. Although I apologize if it’s been used that way towards you in the past. People can be shitty.
First, it assumes that people are male or female because of their gender identity rather than their biological sex. For people who believe that biological sex is real and that acknowledging it is important for purposes of rights, safeguarding and clear communication, using "cis" is therefore a loaded term.
Second, while I'd say that many people who espouse gender identity ideology (by which I mean the belief that we are male or female because of gender identity rather than sex) don't wish to reify sex stereotypes, in practice that tends to be what gender identity boils down to. Eg a little boy will play with dolls or want to wear dresses; this is taken as proof he is "really" a girl. Stereotypes limit both men and women but they tend to be more harmful for women and girls. To call a woman "cis" is therefore taken to mean that she identifies with the stereotypes associated with her sex, stereotypes many women find degrading.
In your explanation of the term you say it just means "this side of" - can you expand on this? This side of what?
So just for clarity, whether or not you agree with it: nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.
The argument that you’re likely remembering is a little bit different. It states that sex and gender and different concepts. Sex is a permanent, biological trait. Things like chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, male vs female etc are part of sex.
Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex. This does not mean that gender is not real, that argument is silly and confusing imo. Gender is a complex series of learned behaviors and mannerisms that we replicate over generations. People sometimes object to this saying that it boils gender down to stereotypes, but that’s kind of what we’re addressing when we say gender isn’t binary. One does not have to conform to all gendered behaviors to be a woman, man, etc. Some people feel the need to create additional labels across that spectrum, but that’s not mandatory.
In summary of this point, people are arguing that gender identity determines gender. Not that it determines sex. And if they are arguing it determines sex they’re being silly and are factually incorrect.
Second, you gave an example of “gender ideology”, that a young boy will play with dolls and wear dresses and people will say he is really a girl. Now, there are plenty of crazy people in the world. So I will not deny that someone out there believes something like that, nor that you’ve witnessed someone say something similar.
However, it’s important to note that (and this is coming from someone who knows dozens of real life trans people and even more people who support them) almost nobody actually believes that. Like I have really, truly, never met a single person, trans or otherwise, who would look at a boy playing with dolls and say he is a girl. Again not denying that you’ve seen it. But the internet amplifies rage inducing opinions and it’s important to keep that in mind.
Regarding your point about stereotypes, I agree they are harmful. But when people say “cis” to refer to people, we’ll use women as an example, they are not labeling that woman as a “stereotypical girly girl” and saying that is what defines her womanhood. They are saying that the woman was born as a female and is comfortable with the gender that comes as the default for it in our society. I know plenty of cis women who are not particularly feminine.
Cis = someone who identifies with their gender assigned at birth. This is most people, so the adjective cis is rarely needed unless we’re discussing trans people, in which case it’s a helpful distinction.
So I was explaining the linguistic origin of the term. It’s a Latin preposition that means “this side of”, as I said. Some other examples of English prepositions: Around, across, within, between, beyond, despite, etc.
These words don’t mean anything on their own and cis is especially confusing since it’s Latin.
To answer your question directly. Cis can mean on this side of anything. When referring to people who are not trans, the original term is actually “cisgender”. It was later shortened to cis in certain contexts for convenience.
The terms cis and trans can also be found in chemistry and cellular biology. We have record of them being used to describe gender and or sexuality dating back to over a century ago.
"Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex."
I think this is actually the sticking point for many people, myself included.
I've yet to see how "gender," as it's used by some members of the trans community, is anything more than, the collection of stereotypical male/female behaviours and expectations that appeals to a particular individual.
And by this definition, it seems obvious that there are as many genders as there are people. So while, yes, those stereotypical behaviours and expectations are socially constructed, we still see, in every single person, a different constellation of those stereotypes. And, indeed, we see many women who defy those stereotypes in various ways while still being women.
p.s. On "almost nobody believing" that a boy who plays with plays with dolls is really a girl, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people making arguments exactly like this.
The article I've just linked to has a few. Here's trans charity Mermaids showing off training materials that literally presents gender on a continuum from G.I Joe to Barbie (https://x.com/steevqj/status/1755353186687180906?s=20). Trans reddit is filled with people explaining that they knew they were trans as children because they liked playing with dolls or wearing their mother's makeup.
It's always difficult to get a true sense of how prevalent a certain attitude is within a group. I try to be very careful about painting in broad strokes. But I think the viewpoint is more common than you're painting it here.
“nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.”
This just isn't true. Gender recognition certificates change a record of someone being male to being female, or vice versa. The whole problem of males in women's sports and in women's spaces rests on the claim that these people are now, for all practical purposes, the opposite sex to the one they were born.
The Sandie Peggie case in Scotland involves a nurse who was suspended for objecting to a male person in the female changing room. In the witness box this male person - a medical doctor - claimed to be biologically female. None of the NHS witnesses defending the treatment of Peggie will admit that Upton is male.
Gender identity is a bait and switch. We are asked to accept that a male person is female but as that is self-evidently untrue, a middle step is fabricated - we are asked to accept him not as female, but as a woman (what does “woman” mean? Insert circular definition). He then claims the right to spaces and resources reserved for female people. Alan Sokal has gone into more detail about the use of the word woman and how in practical terms it still means adult human female.
Theo, cis states that gender identity takes priority over biological sex, that is the conflict at stake regardless of your pontification around sex and gender. What defines Man and Woman.
Others have responded with the same point but using cis and trans woman as a label priorities gender identity over biological sex. A trans women is a woman because they have a female gender identity, they are a kind of woman. If biological sex were prioritized the same person would be a trans man, a man that is trans in appearance, or has a female gender identity, if you believe in such things (I don't). Trans man, emphasizing biology, is of course confusing for people who are adjusted to current usage, so trans-identified man is what we should use, as it respects reality.
It isn't for YOU to decide what WE consider to be derogatory. Arguably, "tr**ny" and "ni***r" aren't derogatory to some, but I'd like to see you call Stephen Halliday the former, or shout out the latter in the middle of Brixton.
Also, after looking back at my comment, I don’t specifically refer to women at all in it. So I’m unsure what term you would have preferred I use there. Non-trans-people? That’s what cis means.
I’m having a hard time following your train of thought here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m working off of a couple assumptions based on your post history. You believe that sex determines your gender, and thus that trans women are actually men and vice versa for trans men. Wouldn’t trans people also fall under the category of “men and women” in that case? If gender is binary and can’t be changed, everyone is either a man or a woman. So how are those two categories helpful for distinguishing trans people from people who are not trans? This is why I find cis to be a useful term.
That is certainly correct. There are only men and women. Trans is used to describe one category, which in itself means you don't need to put a label on the rest of us.
Do you believe, as Theo says, that sex determines gender? (I just think that sex is sex, and gender is an exasperating term which has some use in describing social norms but tends to be unhelpful when talking about individuals).
I hate that the argument has given toilets and women’s shelters equal footing. I don’t give a rats ass which toilet anyone uses. But I DO feel very strongly about preserving single sex spaces in medical settings, shelters, and where women are processing trauma.
Saying things like this does not make you persuasive. It just makes you appear ignorant of the facts.
It is not, generally speaking, illegal for a man to enter a female space. In fact, given the current ridiculous state of the law, it could be considered discriminatory to prevent a man from entering a female space. We've seen this play out several times with women being ignored or even penalised when they object to men in gym changing rooms and public bathrooms.
It seems you think it's valiant to be absolutist and to brook no nuance, but this approach causes more problems than it solves. We obviously agree on the importance and value of female-only spaces. But you're not going to solve this problem by yelling at it or high-horsing everyone who acknowledges a little more nuance than you do.
I suspect that is not the case. I do have a male friend who likes to hear women peeing but I'm absolutely certain he doesn't visit women's toilets to do so.
You absolutely certain about that libby ? I wouldn’t be so certain, we have precisely no idea what others we claim to be friends do in their private life and knowing he has that pervy interest it’s potentially not just where he leaves it lol !!
That in no way changes the fact that there are AGP males who do enter female spaces for more than just peeing (themselves).
Do you truly believe that being possessed of a “female gender identity” magically comes with a guarantee that an individual’s male pattern violence, physical advantage over women, and even paraphilic behaviours are eliminated?
And it’s “male” pattern violence. If you’re going to scare quote something, at least get it right.
Dhejne et al’s study absolutely *does* show male pattern violence among trans identifying males: they simply neglected to include the rather obvious analysis in their paper, as it would (of course) invalidate their biases (and yours):
Whether “cis” or not, males are still males. Or as the UK ruled, men.
As for hormones eliminating physical advantage after 2 years … you again display your overwhelming biases and underwhelming appreciation of academic scholarship:
Read those and weep for your BS claim that “hormones do eliminate physical advantage” (ever!):
Males are larger on average than females, as we are a sexually dimorphic species. Hormones don’t make trans identifying males shorter, nor do they affect myriad other aspects of male advantage (see Hilton 2020 from the link above). And comparing a bunch of out of shape TIMs to fit & athletic women … well that’s just deceptive study design.
Do you have any valid arguments or *evidence* in support of your claims?
Or are you going to flounce away now? If so, do try to stick the landing — you folks always look so silly when you land face first.
So that’s a “no” to having any evidence then. Colour me shocked.
I don’t want you gone — stop being so dramatic, it’s really not good for your mental health to entertain persecution fantasies.
I, like many sane people who follow the *actual* science (and the staggering lack thereof in support of any “trans rights” claims) want:
1. No XY in XX spaces. TIFs can choose where they want to be: as females, they face higher levels of sexual assault than males, so XX spaces are a potential refuge to them. But no one is proposing to force Buck Angel out of XY spaces.
2. Leave the kids alone.
Do whatever you like as adults.
Present however makes you happy.
On your own dime.
But female persons, women & girls that is, have rights too. And since suffrage & the Civil Rights era, there has never existed a right for males to occupy female single-sex spaces, sports, or services.
And ALL children have a right to *evidence-based* healthcare, both physical & mental, as well as a secular education — neither randos online nor untrained educators are best positioned to provide guidance on these healthcare topics, and belief in a gendered essence is as firmly rooted in material reality as Catholics’ belief in transubstantiation.
And all of us gender heretics have the right to call a male a man.
And he’s still your friend with that creepy interest and he thinks it’s okay to talk about it and expect people to be alright with him finding listening to women pee as interesting or a turn on?! Haha choose your mates more wisely
I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to shame you.
If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity, or curiosity, or anything but male pattern hubris (like I often have), you’d consider the possibility that the conclusion you’ve reached is flawed.
Read the fucking philosopher’s post.
Engage with her instead of angry old me.
But seriously, open yourself up to the possibility that perhaps she might have considered the nuances even more deeply than you have, and might bring you some insights that you seem lacking from your male pov.
Get. Over. Yourself.
You’ll end up a better man as a result, and a better ally.
Steve, will you ever respond to my repeated question about how “mooting an issue” (which you admit is impossible anyway) can be read as anything but pontificating to women?
I’ve already responded to it several times. The fact that this doesn’t appear to satisfy you is of literally no concern to me I’m afraid.
I’ll wait patiently to have my “hypocritical ass handed to me” as punishment.
Speaking of which, weren’t you all supposed to be laughing at me by now? What happened?
Are you not as important as you thought? Or did you figure out that the only person who seemed to have trouble understanding the very simple hypothetical I presented is you?
I know you think you have, but what you did was handwave away criticism.
I’m taking my time, best served cold and all that. And, as you might be aware, fascism needs a beat down right now as well, so your weak-ass “brilliance” comes later.
It’s in your publication description, you bonehead.
Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?
Frank Lee’s presence seems to indicate otherwise, as does *your* inability to reflect based on a simple observation: when you are challenged, you get super defensive instead of, you know, engaging constructively.
"Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?"
Ah! There is a shred of reading comprehension!! Yes, I've never described myself as brilliant, I'm clearly describing some of the conversations as brilliant, just as I also variously describe them as baffling, and, as you're so ably demonstrating, bizarre.
Okay, as fun as this sad little game has been, I'm done now. You've made yourself look more than stupid enough without me continuing to point it out. I'm genuinely sorry for whatever has happened (or hasn't happened) in your life that makes you behave like this.
If you ever feel like doing the one worthwhile thing you've threatened to do and actually share that research, I'd appreciate the opportunity to learn something. Otherwise, have fun trying and failing to organise that humiliating pile-on you promised. Rest assured that I take you and your threats and insults very seriously.
Hi Steve! This is one of the first essays of yours I’ve read in at least a year after dropping off the face of the internet. It’s been a very interesting and disturbing one. I left twitter, TikTok, etc. a long time ago so I miss a lot of these happenings. As someone who’s quite present in my local queer and trans communities, I was absolutely horrified reading the many posts and articles you linked. It definitely confirmed my decision to stay off those circles of the internet, but also gave me a lot of insight into the fear of and opposition to trans people. The behavior you outlined in this article is genuinely abhorrent and also a very accurate representation of the fears I hear cis people expressing. Like exactly. And it was very interesting because this kind of stuff would be so quickly condemned in my personal social circles, so I never understood where all these fears were coming from. I’d like to think that the majority of real trans communities are the same and that the crazies flock to X, but I can’t be sure. I have a question though! At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise? I’m curious!
"At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise?"
Yeah, this is a tricky question. The easy answer is "when they fully pass."
There are lots of trans women who wouldn't have provoked that horrified reaction from the woman in the bathroom because they look like women. Right now, and for many years, there have been trans women using female spaces without causing any problems.
The problem is, the question of whether one passes is VERY subjective. Especially in today's insane climate. There's a whole echo chamber on social media built around convincing people who very clearly don't pass at all that they're Gal Gadot. Plus, there's the whole "trans women don't owe you femininity" wing of trans activism that claims that anybody, even a bearded rugby player with hairy shovels for hands becomes a woman the instant they say they identify as one.
But yeah, the more I think about it, maybe the problem is the whole concept of "passing."
Because the question isn't what you can fool people into believing, the question is what is actually true. Trans women are men who wish to be perceived as women. That's absolutely fine. 95% of the time the way you're perceived is all that really matters. But I think it's a huge mistake to think it's cruel or "transphobic" if there are times when they have to defer to their biology.
So my preferred solution, which some public spaces are already adopting, is to make men's toilets gender-neutral spaces where it's normal to see all "genders" using them, and leave female spaces for females.
Who knows, in a few generations, maybe this would lead to a world where it becomes so normal to see male- and female-presenting people in a single restroom that the concept of gendered spaces fades away on its own. But the testing ground for that should be male spaces, where there is no increased risk caused by mixing. Not female spaces.
No maybe, Steve.
Sex deception is still deception, just as any crime is a crime even if it’s not identified/prosecuted.
"Sex deception is still deception, just as any crime is a crime even if it’s not identified/prosecuted."
Sure, but deceiving people about your sex isn't a crime. And in the majority of cases it would be absolutely ridiculous to treat it as one. Again, 95% of the time, perception is what matters (an obvious exception is sports).
If a guy wants to walk around the world presenting in a stereotypically feminine way, that's up to him. If he fools you, that's not his problem. The problem is managing his interaction with women's spaces.
C'mon Steve, if he fools you, that's not his problem? You got 90% of the way but didn't want to commit to your own views?
Think of Boy's Don't Cry - while the men are the true evil here, it's clear to me the protagonist doesn't get meaningful consent from her partner. Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?
I get that someone can adopt a gender identity of the opposite sex and live without much issue, but it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone's standards to withhold this info to a potential intimate partner, for example. This means passing people can probably get by just fine but the key thing is they do actually need to accept who they are, because that is just reality. You actually can't be something you're not.
“Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?”
I haven’t seen Boys Don’t Cry, so I’m not getting the reference, but people lie all the time. And again, in 95% of cases, it’s not viewed as a crime of any sort.
That doesn’t mean I think lying is okay. But dressing as a woman/man is obviously not lying in the sense that anybody uses the word. Otherwise fancy dress parties would be filled with “liars.” Not to mention the millions of “lies” that would be being told daily by makeup and plastic surgery.
If you’re talking specifically about lying to coerce someone into bed, that’s obviously wrong. But that’s a very specific case that wasn’t under discussion and would fit into the 5% of cases where perception isn’t all that matters.
Really not sure what you’re taking issue with or how you think I’m being inconsistent.
It is not whether he fools someone (btw misgendering some of the activists would say). It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man. I have met “feminine” trans, none convince and the most convincing only gets away with for a couple of minutes at best in close proximity. Distance is hardly a factor in justifying this nonsense. Live their lives and let women live theirs.
“It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man.”
Yes, agreed. But we weren’t discussing this scenario. We were talking about the potential criminality of mistaking a man for a woman.
And even if you believe you’ve never done this (spoiler:you almost certainly have) transition surgeries/hormones are only ever going to get better. There will absolutely be a point when trans women pass most of the time. And the groundwork for that point needs to be laid now.
This makes perfect sense. While I do understand that this may create fear among trans men of violence in male spaces, why should women be the ones to accommodate what trans men think they need?
But the follow on would be what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?
“ what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?”
Just to be clear, I presume you’re meaning trans identifying man here? Not what most people mean when they say trans man?
If so, I’d be a little surprised I guess, but no big deal. Even if this person passed fully as female, I’d be maybe minimally uncomfortable, but that discomfort wouldn’t come with any fear that they’d hurt me or do anything inappropriate.
It’s funny, one of the Reddit posts I saw while researching this was a trans woman raging because his university had designated the men’s as the “inclusive” “all-gender” bathroom and had left the women’s for women.
He had an option, everything was fine, but he could no longer justify invading the women’s.
And exactly how many pass? Almost none. But the clue is in the word, pass. If they also pass as under 18, would they get into minor’s spaces? If you PASS, then you are NOT. Live your life as you please but without forcing others to live their lives according to your self perception.
“And exactly how many pass? Almost none.”
I don’t know. Nor do you. Largely because trans women who pass, by definition, aren’t read as trans women.
Yes, very obviously trans women are not women. But if a trans woman passes as a woman, then there are certain situations where them living as they please is based on YOUR perception.
There’s a good chance, for example that you’ve passed a trans woman on the street, or even shared a bathroom with one, and felt zero discomfort because you perceived them as a woman. So, and this is a serious question, what do you suggest doing with this person?
I’ve been unequivocal in my support for women’s spaces. And, of course, spaces like prisons and rape shelters and sports are different and should be managed based on sex regardless of presentation. But total absolutism seems silly as well as obviously unenforceable.
I feel no discomfort in meeting or dealing with trans. My non recognition of trans identified males as women is not based on my discomfort levels, as it doesn’t bother me. The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what. At least we agree on the issue of prisons which has always been my main area of concern on the issue, one I had written about prior to setting up substack and possibly won’t return to, anytime soon.
“The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what.”
Again, you can’t possibly know this. It’s like saying you can always tell when someone is lying. By definition, the lies you didn’t detect appear to you to have been truth. So you assume they were true.
Similarly, any women you didn’t detect as trans appeared to be women. So you assumed they were women.
Respectfully, I would ask you not to use cis, we are women and don't need a prefix. Thanks 😊
I was about to say the same. I know it's an ancient word that has been used in scientific terms for a very long time but I'm simply a woman. My sexual preference is my own business.
What do you mean by sexual preference?
Hi! I am actually a fellow (almost) woman and while I understand where you’re coming from, cis isn’t a derogatory word nor a prefix. It’s just an adjective people use for clarity when trans people are involved in the discussion. It comes from the Latin preposition meaning “on this side of” as opposed to trans which is “the other side of”. The word is not meant to degrade your womanhood any more than adjectives like “white” or “brunette” would. Although I apologize if it’s been used that way towards you in the past. People can be shitty.
People object to "cis" for at least two reasons:
First, it assumes that people are male or female because of their gender identity rather than their biological sex. For people who believe that biological sex is real and that acknowledging it is important for purposes of rights, safeguarding and clear communication, using "cis" is therefore a loaded term.
Second, while I'd say that many people who espouse gender identity ideology (by which I mean the belief that we are male or female because of gender identity rather than sex) don't wish to reify sex stereotypes, in practice that tends to be what gender identity boils down to. Eg a little boy will play with dolls or want to wear dresses; this is taken as proof he is "really" a girl. Stereotypes limit both men and women but they tend to be more harmful for women and girls. To call a woman "cis" is therefore taken to mean that she identifies with the stereotypes associated with her sex, stereotypes many women find degrading.
In your explanation of the term you say it just means "this side of" - can you expand on this? This side of what?
So just for clarity, whether or not you agree with it: nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.
The argument that you’re likely remembering is a little bit different. It states that sex and gender and different concepts. Sex is a permanent, biological trait. Things like chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, male vs female etc are part of sex.
Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex. This does not mean that gender is not real, that argument is silly and confusing imo. Gender is a complex series of learned behaviors and mannerisms that we replicate over generations. People sometimes object to this saying that it boils gender down to stereotypes, but that’s kind of what we’re addressing when we say gender isn’t binary. One does not have to conform to all gendered behaviors to be a woman, man, etc. Some people feel the need to create additional labels across that spectrum, but that’s not mandatory.
In summary of this point, people are arguing that gender identity determines gender. Not that it determines sex. And if they are arguing it determines sex they’re being silly and are factually incorrect.
Second, you gave an example of “gender ideology”, that a young boy will play with dolls and wear dresses and people will say he is really a girl. Now, there are plenty of crazy people in the world. So I will not deny that someone out there believes something like that, nor that you’ve witnessed someone say something similar.
However, it’s important to note that (and this is coming from someone who knows dozens of real life trans people and even more people who support them) almost nobody actually believes that. Like I have really, truly, never met a single person, trans or otherwise, who would look at a boy playing with dolls and say he is a girl. Again not denying that you’ve seen it. But the internet amplifies rage inducing opinions and it’s important to keep that in mind.
Regarding your point about stereotypes, I agree they are harmful. But when people say “cis” to refer to people, we’ll use women as an example, they are not labeling that woman as a “stereotypical girly girl” and saying that is what defines her womanhood. They are saying that the woman was born as a female and is comfortable with the gender that comes as the default for it in our society. I know plenty of cis women who are not particularly feminine.
Cis = someone who identifies with their gender assigned at birth. This is most people, so the adjective cis is rarely needed unless we’re discussing trans people, in which case it’s a helpful distinction.
So I was explaining the linguistic origin of the term. It’s a Latin preposition that means “this side of”, as I said. Some other examples of English prepositions: Around, across, within, between, beyond, despite, etc.
These words don’t mean anything on their own and cis is especially confusing since it’s Latin.
To answer your question directly. Cis can mean on this side of anything. When referring to people who are not trans, the original term is actually “cisgender”. It was later shortened to cis in certain contexts for convenience.
The terms cis and trans can also be found in chemistry and cellular biology. We have record of them being used to describe gender and or sexuality dating back to over a century ago.
"Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex."
I think this is actually the sticking point for many people, myself included.
I've yet to see how "gender," as it's used by some members of the trans community, is anything more than, the collection of stereotypical male/female behaviours and expectations that appeals to a particular individual.
And by this definition, it seems obvious that there are as many genders as there are people. So while, yes, those stereotypical behaviours and expectations are socially constructed, we still see, in every single person, a different constellation of those stereotypes. And, indeed, we see many women who defy those stereotypes in various ways while still being women.
I've written about this here. https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/trans-women-are-not-women-and-thats
p.s. On "almost nobody believing" that a boy who plays with plays with dolls is really a girl, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people making arguments exactly like this.
The article I've just linked to has a few. Here's trans charity Mermaids showing off training materials that literally presents gender on a continuum from G.I Joe to Barbie (https://x.com/steevqj/status/1755353186687180906?s=20). Trans reddit is filled with people explaining that they knew they were trans as children because they liked playing with dolls or wearing their mother's makeup.
It's always difficult to get a true sense of how prevalent a certain attitude is within a group. I try to be very careful about painting in broad strokes. But I think the viewpoint is more common than you're painting it here.
“nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.”
This just isn't true. Gender recognition certificates change a record of someone being male to being female, or vice versa. The whole problem of males in women's sports and in women's spaces rests on the claim that these people are now, for all practical purposes, the opposite sex to the one they were born.
The Sandie Peggie case in Scotland involves a nurse who was suspended for objecting to a male person in the female changing room. In the witness box this male person - a medical doctor - claimed to be biologically female. None of the NHS witnesses defending the treatment of Peggie will admit that Upton is male.
Gender identity is a bait and switch. We are asked to accept that a male person is female but as that is self-evidently untrue, a middle step is fabricated - we are asked to accept him not as female, but as a woman (what does “woman” mean? Insert circular definition). He then claims the right to spaces and resources reserved for female people. Alan Sokal has gone into more detail about the use of the word woman and how in practical terms it still means adult human female.
https://thecritic.co.uk/on-the-deceptive-use-of-words/
Theo, cis states that gender identity takes priority over biological sex, that is the conflict at stake regardless of your pontification around sex and gender. What defines Man and Woman.
I’m not sureeeeee what this is addressing/what you’re trying to add that I didn’t already say.
Others have responded with the same point but using cis and trans woman as a label priorities gender identity over biological sex. A trans women is a woman because they have a female gender identity, they are a kind of woman. If biological sex were prioritized the same person would be a trans man, a man that is trans in appearance, or has a female gender identity, if you believe in such things (I don't). Trans man, emphasizing biology, is of course confusing for people who are adjusted to current usage, so trans-identified man is what we should use, as it respects reality.
Thank you. Although it isn't usually a derogatory word, it has been hijacked by the 'trans' community as a slur.
My hackles just rise when I see it 🤣
Its use is very recent. If you need any prefix just say “real”
You will never be a woman Theo, no almost about it.
…The clown suddenly disengages
I swear you make fun of yourselves.
I’m not trans you absolute clown 🤦
It isn't for YOU to decide what WE consider to be derogatory. Arguably, "tr**ny" and "ni***r" aren't derogatory to some, but I'd like to see you call Stephen Halliday the former, or shout out the latter in the middle of Brixton.
I’m also loving this we vs. you thing. What exactly is the difference between us?
I mean, okay. Those are not at all the same thing. But you’re clearly not here for a good faith discussion.
Also, after looking back at my comment, I don’t specifically refer to women at all in it. So I’m unsure what term you would have preferred I use there. Non-trans-people? That’s what cis means.
Just woman will do 😊
I wasn’t talking about women specifically though, just people who aren’t trans in general?
People who aren't trans are men and women.
I’m having a hard time following your train of thought here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m working off of a couple assumptions based on your post history. You believe that sex determines your gender, and thus that trans women are actually men and vice versa for trans men. Wouldn’t trans people also fall under the category of “men and women” in that case? If gender is binary and can’t be changed, everyone is either a man or a woman. So how are those two categories helpful for distinguishing trans people from people who are not trans? This is why I find cis to be a useful term.
That is certainly correct. There are only men and women. Trans is used to describe one category, which in itself means you don't need to put a label on the rest of us.
Do you believe, as Theo says, that sex determines gender? (I just think that sex is sex, and gender is an exasperating term which has some use in describing social norms but tends to be unhelpful when talking about individuals).
I agree with you, sex is sex and gender just gets in the way.
I understand what you mean now! Thank you for explaining
I hate that the argument has given toilets and women’s shelters equal footing. I don’t give a rats ass which toilet anyone uses. But I DO feel very strongly about preserving single sex spaces in medical settings, shelters, and where women are processing trauma.
Is voyeurism not a crime, Steve?
Every time such a male enters a female private space …
Saying things like this does not make you persuasive. It just makes you appear ignorant of the facts.
It is not, generally speaking, illegal for a man to enter a female space. In fact, given the current ridiculous state of the law, it could be considered discriminatory to prevent a man from entering a female space. We've seen this play out several times with women being ignored or even penalised when they object to men in gym changing rooms and public bathrooms.
It seems you think it's valiant to be absolutist and to brook no nuance, but this approach causes more problems than it solves. We obviously agree on the importance and value of female-only spaces. But you're not going to solve this problem by yelling at it or high-horsing everyone who acknowledges a little more nuance than you do.
Lord god almighty what has transpired while I was asleep
I suspect that is not the case. I do have a male friend who likes to hear women peeing but I'm absolutely certain he doesn't visit women's toilets to do so.
You absolutely certain about that libby ? I wouldn’t be so certain, we have precisely no idea what others we claim to be friends do in their private life and knowing he has that pervy interest it’s potentially not just where he leaves it lol !!
Good for you & for him, Libby.
That in no way changes the fact that there are AGP males who do enter female spaces for more than just peeing (themselves).
Do you truly believe that being possessed of a “female gender identity” magically comes with a guarantee that an individual’s male pattern violence, physical advantage over women, and even paraphilic behaviours are eliminated?
Trans “women” are men, Glau.
Just ask the UK Supreme Court.
And it’s “male” pattern violence. If you’re going to scare quote something, at least get it right.
Dhejne et al’s study absolutely *does* show male pattern violence among trans identifying males: they simply neglected to include the rather obvious analysis in their paper, as it would (of course) invalidate their biases (and yours):
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/mbm-briefing-on-dhjene-et-al.-april-2021-1.pdf
Whether “cis” or not, males are still males. Or as the UK ruled, men.
As for hormones eliminating physical advantage after 2 years … you again display your overwhelming biases and underwhelming appreciation of academic scholarship:
https://www.womenarehuman.com/research-studies-confirm-trans-athletes-have-advantages-over-women/
Read those and weep for your BS claim that “hormones do eliminate physical advantage” (ever!):
Males are larger on average than females, as we are a sexually dimorphic species. Hormones don’t make trans identifying males shorter, nor do they affect myriad other aspects of male advantage (see Hilton 2020 from the link above). And comparing a bunch of out of shape TIMs to fit & athletic women … well that’s just deceptive study design.
Do you have any valid arguments or *evidence* in support of your claims?
Or are you going to flounce away now? If so, do try to stick the landing — you folks always look so silly when you land face first.
So that’s a “no” to having any evidence then. Colour me shocked.
I don’t want you gone — stop being so dramatic, it’s really not good for your mental health to entertain persecution fantasies.
I, like many sane people who follow the *actual* science (and the staggering lack thereof in support of any “trans rights” claims) want:
1. No XY in XX spaces. TIFs can choose where they want to be: as females, they face higher levels of sexual assault than males, so XX spaces are a potential refuge to them. But no one is proposing to force Buck Angel out of XY spaces.
2. Leave the kids alone.
Do whatever you like as adults.
Present however makes you happy.
On your own dime.
But female persons, women & girls that is, have rights too. And since suffrage & the Civil Rights era, there has never existed a right for males to occupy female single-sex spaces, sports, or services.
And ALL children have a right to *evidence-based* healthcare, both physical & mental, as well as a secular education — neither randos online nor untrained educators are best positioned to provide guidance on these healthcare topics, and belief in a gendered essence is as firmly rooted in material reality as Catholics’ belief in transubstantiation.
And all of us gender heretics have the right to call a male a man.
Get Ovarit.
And he’s still your friend with that creepy interest and he thinks it’s okay to talk about it and expect people to be alright with him finding listening to women pee as interesting or a turn on?! Haha choose your mates more wisely
I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to shame you.
If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity, or curiosity, or anything but male pattern hubris (like I often have), you’d consider the possibility that the conclusion you’ve reached is flawed.
Read the fucking philosopher’s post.
Engage with her instead of angry old me.
But seriously, open yourself up to the possibility that perhaps she might have considered the nuances even more deeply than you have, and might bring you some insights that you seem lacking from your male pov.
Get. Over. Yourself.
You’ll end up a better man as a result, and a better ally.
I can’t figure out what the argument is
"I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to shame you."
😅 Sadly, I think he's been pretty clear that his motivations aren't about productive conversation or change but self aggrandisement.
Reminds me of talking to the white saviours of the anti-racist movement. It's my first encounter with the TERF variant.
Tf is going on 😭
Steve is going to get his hypocritical ass handed to him shortly.
That’s WTF is going on Theo.
Read for fucking comprehension man.
“Steve is going to get his hypocritical ass handed to him shortly.”
Whenever you’re ready. I’m literally quaking.
Steve, will you ever respond to my repeated question about how “mooting an issue” (which you admit is impossible anyway) can be read as anything but pontificating to women?
I’ve already responded to it several times. The fact that this doesn’t appear to satisfy you is of literally no concern to me I’m afraid.
I’ll wait patiently to have my “hypocritical ass handed to me” as punishment.
Speaking of which, weren’t you all supposed to be laughing at me by now? What happened?
Are you not as important as you thought? Or did you figure out that the only person who seemed to have trouble understanding the very simple hypothetical I presented is you?
You haven’t actually responded Steve.
I know you think you have, but what you did was handwave away criticism.
I’m taking my time, best served cold and all that. And, as you might be aware, fascism needs a beat down right now as well, so your weak-ass “brilliance” comes later.
"I’m taking my time, best served cold and all that"
🤣 Okay. I'll keep one eye over my shoulder.
Also, why do you keep putting "brilliance" in quotes? I've never described myself as brilliant.
It’s in your publication description, you bonehead.
Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?
Frank Lee’s presence seems to indicate otherwise, as does *your* inability to reflect based on a simple observation: when you are challenged, you get super defensive instead of, you know, engaging constructively.
But other than that, brilliant dude.
Sheer blinding brilliance.
"Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?"
Ah! There is a shred of reading comprehension!! Yes, I've never described myself as brilliant, I'm clearly describing some of the conversations as brilliant, just as I also variously describe them as baffling, and, as you're so ably demonstrating, bizarre.
Okay, as fun as this sad little game has been, I'm done now. You've made yourself look more than stupid enough without me continuing to point it out. I'm genuinely sorry for whatever has happened (or hasn't happened) in your life that makes you behave like this.
If you ever feel like doing the one worthwhile thing you've threatened to do and actually share that research, I'd appreciate the opportunity to learn something. Otherwise, have fun trying and failing to organise that humiliating pile-on you promised. Rest assured that I take you and your threats and insults very seriously.
No such thing as CIS thanks Theo. Your comment is null and void once you use that