The Feminist Orchestra Bookclub discussion

November's pick!

Just reading the first chapter, looking good. Lots to discuss in this one.

I've finished the book day before yesterday and I'am having difficulties 'rating' it. The story is very important, and I've learned a lot about trans-women. But I didnt like the writing style, and more than once I thought: "What? She just said the exact opposite:"

I really, really didn't like this book. I thought it was all over the place and some of the things the author talked about I took offense to. It's supposed to be a memoir, and thus is full of opinions and personal stories. I couldn't really focus on them, and didn't find myself particularly moved by anything because I felt quite affronted while reading it. Like, it really just rubbed me the wrong way and felt a bit preachy. I don't read a lot of memoirs, so maybe that has something to do with it. I find it odd that although this is a memoir, there are a lot of grand all-knowing statements from which my concerns arise. I also thought the writing style was ... all over the place. Often contradictory. That's kind of the theme for me. It was just all over the place. Overall, I didn't enjoy it but I'm sure it will get people talking.

Some of the most prominent thoughts I had throughout and after reading: The idea that being feminine means you're a women? That being sensitive means you're a woman? Cutting your hair makes you not a woman anymore? Therefore if you are not feminine, you are not a woman?? Being sexually assaulted validated the authors womanhood? I thought the whole book had a recurring theme of needing love and approval from a man. I also take serious issue with the use of the term "fish" and the author's stance on childhood hormone blockers, having done research after reading this.

This review sums up most of thoughts far more succinctly than I could. Basically, I was left with a lot more questions than answers. In that review there is a link in there to an article which talks about the term "cis" which I'm still investigating and find fascinating. I think it's good to go into books like this without being afraid to do your own research. Discourse and critical thought and discussion are so important.

Here ( https://liberationcollective.wordpres... ) is an essay which I found very relatable after reading this book. Redefining Realness has definitely encouraged me to open my eyes a little more, and get a little more critical with my feminism, and for that I am grateful. Interesting pick, and I'm looking forward to hearing others' opinions!

I'll precede by saying I haven't finished the book so won't comment on anything else but on the term cis:

I have to agree with the discussion of cis being misrepresented in the blog post review. The term cisgender simply exists to donate people who are comfortable and happy identify as the gender they are assigned at birth i.e. I feel that I am a woman and am more than happy identifying as such, even when I do not conform the gender expectations of being a woman, and have been recognised by others as a woman since birth. It is really important to have the term cis to accompany trans (and intersex) because without the term cis we are treating what 'cis' denotes as what is normal and that trans and intersex people are an abnormal other than needs to be separately labeled. As has been done historically.

From the quote used perhaps 'children who behave in line with their prescribed gender' is bad phrasing as like you say it suggest a proper way of behaving that is womanly or manly whereas you can be a cis-woman, act traditionally masculine and still be assigned the label 'woman' at birth and throughout life and be comfortable with that. Obviously the idea that some behaviours are more womanly or manly is absurd in itself but I don't think that is the point. It is important that we allow people to identify as the sex they themselves identify with.

Jean wrote: "I'll precede by saying I haven't finished the book so won't comment on anything else but on the term cis:

I have to agree with the discussion of cis being misrepresented in the blog post review. T..."

Thank-you for replying and explaining. I really, truly, do enjoy this discussion and learning. Basically, I am confused about: The point of the term cis. The definition of the term. The implications of the definition. Regarding your explanation, "I feel that I am a woman and am more than happy identifying as such..." A thought that crossed my mind was: What does it mean to feel like a woman?

I'm commenting after having read (this) article. It makes the most sense to me, of everything I've read, but it seems to be at odds with the general consensus of things. I'm trying to understand why. I'm trying to step back and get to the root of things (for this comment, the term cis) which, to me, wasn't explained satisfactorily in this book. Maybe that's why I had such a difficult time with it.

The definition of cis that I come across most often means to "identify with the sex they were assigned at birth" but also "to be comfortable with the gender they were assigned at birth."

To me, the term "cis" doesn't seem necessary. I wouldn't call myself a ciswoman. I am a woman. An adult human female. I don't "identify" with that, I just am. Certainly growing up hasn't been comfortable ... it makes it seem like womanhood is ... a performance? Something anyone can accept or reject? I'm not comfortable being a woman in society, I'm not comfortable with the way women are treated. It sucks! The definition seems to imply that accepting the label cis means I'm accepting that everything is fine (in terms of women being oppressed globally) and I am embracing it. Everything is not fine; women are oppressed all over the world, abused, mutilated, murdered, and sold, etc, to this day because they are women. I'm not comfortable with that. I don't identify with that. I don't accept that that is just part of being a woman.

This is why the definition makes me uncomfortable. By saying I'm cis it seems to imply I accept that this "identity" of womanhood and am comfortable with all that happens to women. That all this sex-based oppression is just the way things are and I'm okay with it. That I'm choosing to be a woman, and am accepting and complicit in my own oppression. It seems to imply that all the women oppressed because they are women could, theoretically, "identify" out of their oppression. Which they can't.

Quoting the article linked: "By definition, then, to be “cisgender” is an unproblematic state of experiencing gender because it means your sex-based social role assignment at birth is in harmony with your True Self. To describe someone as a “ciswoman” is to believe that girl-socialized-females should (and do) experience their sex-based socialization as a series of neutral or maybe even pleasant interactions with the world. Yet the lived experiences of women and the statistics tell a staggeringly different story."

I don't understand why cis appears to be the opposite to trans. Is cis only used when talking about transgender people? To me, it seems to be presented that if you're not a transwoman then you're a cisman. If you're not a transman then you're a ciswoman. If you're none of those, then you're and intersex woman or intersex man. But where is just "woman" or "man" in that?
Is a woman the same thing as a ciswoman? The definition of a woman is 'adult human female,' and the definition of a ciswoman is ... 'a woman who is comfortable with her gender assigned at birth.' Those don't sound the same. (and woman would be IN the definition of ciswoman, so wouldn't it need its own definition?) I also see the definition of ciswoman as 'female assigned female at birth.'

It seems like woman is a fact and cis (ciswoman) is an identity. That makes more sense to me, when I look at it that way. As in, woman is your biological state of being, and ciswoman is your gender identity. Could someone be both a woman and a ciswoman? Biologically, everyone is either female, male, or intersex. All these other new terms and words are identities, feelings, that don't change your femaleness or maleness or intersexness. They refer to your "identity" which is how you view your gender, not your biology (which is unchangeable. Even with surgery and hormones your DNA and chromosomes aren't changed).

It also seems like there is pressure, that is is more politically correct, to call yourself as a ciswoman, rather than a woman. I don't understand why. That's still what it comes back to for me. I don't "identify" as a ciswoman, I am a woman.

You say that the term cis accompanies trans and intersex and without it it implies that trans and intersex are 'other' and need to be separately labeled. A woman is a woman. A transwoman is a transwoman. I don't understand why an additional label of "cis" needs to be created and added onto that. I don't understand, when you say 'without the term cis we are treating what 'cis' denotes as what is normal' ... how does creating the term cis change that?

The cis population would still be +/- 98.3%, the intersex population would still be +/- 1.7%, and the trans population would still be +/- 0.3%.

If the term was created to avoid "othering" everyone who is intersex and transgender, why is that not the definition? i.e. cis means you are not trans and not intersex.

(Or is that the definition? Trans means you feel like you were born in to the wrong sex of body; you are uncomfortable with your assigned gender. Opposite of that would mean you feel like you were born into the right sex; you are comfortable with your assigned gender. Which is the general definition of cis. I suppose that makes sense in theory, but following this logic, that means cis is opposite to trans. That doesn't make sense to me. Am I, a woman, opposite of a transwoman? No. The current definition of cis does not mean simply someone who is not trans and not intersex.)

(And then I'm thinking back to concluding that cis and trans are identities, while intersex is a biological fact. So why would the definition of cis talk about intersex people when it is an identity supposedly opposite to trans. So yeah. None of this really makes sense to me which is why I have a hard time understanding the term cis.)

Another quote from the link: "The idea that non-trans people can be accurately described as “cisgender” assumes that failure to reject the sex-based social role one is coercively assigned at birth—that is, rejecting it by actively identifying as “trans”—is an accurate reflection of “cis” people’s Authentic Self."

Wow, this is probably super long. I am thinking out loud here and really hope to continue this discussion, it is so interesting. (Especially in this group because in other places on the internet, as I've discovered, it can get pretty heated.) I'm still trying to understand point of the term cis, the definition and what the definition means. I'm trying to learn and understand this mainstream usage of the term, because current usage and implications of the term obviously have me not accepting it that easily. Perhaps because I haven't found a concrete, factual definition that doesn't leave me with questions. I'm thinking about where it came from, why it was created, what it means for everyone, and the future. I'm just trying understand better so I can have a more informed opinion.

One of things that cisgendered means to me is that you have never had to experience the oppression and prejudice faced by trans or intersex people. This cannot be expressed by simply calling yourself a man or a woman because trans-women/men are also women/men. It does not have to mean you accept the gender roles regularly enforced by society. I have to say I don't follow every line of thought in your post (not to criticise you here) so I don't think I can explain why I chose to use the label any better than that :).

GoldenBooks wrote: "Jean wrote: "I'll precede by saying I haven't finished the book so won't comment on anything else but on the term cis:

I have to agree with the discussion of cis being misrepresented in the blog p..."

I think part of the problem here is the conflating of "female": possessing the biological traits of the female sex, and "woman": possessing or adhering to culturally sanctioned displays of that which is considered "feminine".

To be "cis" is to be "not trans". It goes back to the Latin roots: "trans", meaning "across", indicating that at the core the *gender identity* (not biological sex) you were assigned at birth isn't the one you identify. As opposed to "cis", meaning "same side", indicating that the gender identity you were born with matches that which you feel most comfortable expressing.

It seems to me a lot of your confusion/resistance to the "cis" category is that it's simply a word for an opposite, but really we have those all the time. "cisgender" means "not transgendered" in the same way "night" means "not daytime" or "straight" means "not homosexual". It's just more convenient for expression to have an agreed upon term to express NOT something. So when I say "I'm a CIS woman", I'm simply saying "my gender identity at birth matches what I feel comfortable with". I don't identify myself like that all the time, usually just when I'm also highlighting different aspects of my identity (i.e. "I'm a bisexual, white CIS lady").

As for why we're just now using terms like "cisgender" - well, we have to. Trans people have been around for eternity, but as societies grow and change, so does the language it uses to discuss it's marginalized classes!

What an amazing, brave story and informative book.

I've learnt that the words we use are important: cis, trans, being not passing. This is the only memoir I've read with no photo sections from the authors childhood or the past. I felt the need to google images of 'Janet Mock before' to satisfy my curiosity and then felt I was intruding.

I was disappointed that validation of beauty, especially in the eyes of men was held as important.

This book raised my trans awareness and I truly admire Janet for becoming who she is and her determination.

Great recommendation.