True, and good point. But in chemistry, “cis” and “trans” describe the position of atoms or groups across a double bond. They’re valid, measurable structural configurations. No one is disputing that. But that’s exactly my point. So, in chemistry, “cis” and “trans” have a physical basis. You can observe them with spectroscopy or a microscope. They’re not subjective labels, they describe a molecule’s geometry.

So like, in human biology, “cis” is ideological, not structural. No biologist ever needed “cis” to describe normal sexual reproduction. The terms “male” and “female” have worked fine for centuries because they actually map onto our reproductive system, chromosomes, and gametes. “Cisgender” didn’t come from embryology or genetics, it came from gender theory. Its purpose is to reframe normal biological categories as just one version of an identity spectrum, so “trans” feels equally original. But unlike cis/trans isomers, a man identifying as a woman doesn’t physically flip chromosomes the way a double bond flips atoms. It’s not structural, it’s social.

So yeah, “cis/trans” in chemistry is real, observable, and testable. “Cis/trans” in sex categories is marketing. One is about measurable bonds, while the other is about feelings. Huge difference.

But I appreciate you bringing up the chemistry, it actually proves my point.

"Cis" is a Latin prefix or word which means "on the same side". So, in this context, cisgender, cisman, and ciswoman are meant to describe individuals whose gender identity matches their biological sex. So, if you were born a biological female, and you identify as a female, then the term now given is "ciswoman".

I would need you to break your post down CG so I can understand it. I’m also not understanding how naraht is proving your point. Because of that, I read naraht’s post 4 times and your post 6 times and what I’m getting out of what you’re trying to say is what I changed your post to. Am I right?

You see how confusing that is? It’s bullshit, if you ask me.

Exactly.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
THANK YOU! Finally somebody over here with some common sense.

Rejected REAL women and then turn around and make that one of the reasons to not reject a 6’ 2” 275 lb weirdo. Makes ZERO sense!

In chemistry, “cis/trans” means a real, physical flip you can see under a microscope. In gender talk, “cis” is just a social label, no physical flip, no real structure.

So when naraht brings up chemistry, it shows the word only makes sense when it describes a real structure, which gender identity doesn’t have. That’s why it proves my point.

Real science vs. made up marketing.

lol
Yes. They’re real science terms repurposed so ideological fluff pretends to be biological fact. But it’s pretty much rhetorical camouflage.

Agreed!

Doubly agreed!

Words from the son of an Alpha Man Lol! I’m messing with you PB. I agree. What do you mean it’s not about the facts though? I thought CG was over here kickin scientific facts and knowledge. For real.

I hear you. Now I have a complete understanding of why back in the day when folks on here would reply to a post of yours with something you didn’t agree with, you’d always say “oh ok” or not reply at all LOL

For real though, those hidden messages is why I struggle to read the Bible. You must read it a lot.

I'm just confused as to why you think I support you on this. I'm pointing out that it isn't a made up term and the use of cis as the opposite isn't special to sexual identity. I have a non-binary child who let my wife and I know at age 20. (Has *really* early male pattern baldness which as a gender marker tends to affect things as it would from a nb who is a D breast size, however I know someone for who that is true as well.

Main reason that I haven't chimed in otherwise with a position on this is that it doesn't affect my fraternity since we aren't social and as such admitted both women and men in the 1970s. I honestly think having a fraternity where the situation of having brothers able to date each other *and* working through which students can be admitted 50 years ago tends to make the group in general more liberal on the topic. (the first out of the closet homosexual I ever met was my big brother as a Pledge)

Okay, so….. I get that you weren’t “supporting me”, and I didn’t say you were. I said your chemistry example actually makes my point clearer. And then you’re like… “I’m not taking a position” or something like that, which is nonsense, because you did take a position by clarifying you don’t support my point. So, I’m not twisting your words, I’m telling you how they land. That’s what you’re not getting, naraht.

Yes, “cis” as a prefix isn’t made up, and no one’s arguing Latin roots don’t exist. But in chemistry, “cis/trans” means you can physically verify a structural flip. Spectroscopy, molecular geometry…. you can test it. It’s measurable.

In gender talk, the label does not describe a structural shift. I mean, nobody flips chromosomes, gametes, or reproductive function like a molecule flips across a bond. The prefix is real, the flip is ideological. Big difference.

And I respect that this is personal for your family, I really do. But compassion and clarity don’t cancel each other out. One doesn’t rewrite the other.

Latin prefix or not, the biology stays the same. That was my point, and it still is.

CG got more boomerangs than Australia. You say one thing sideways, next thing you know you get slapped by your own words. Folks up in here flexing chemistry prefixes and got handed a molecular CG slap down LMAO!

On that note, I just looked up Phi Sigma, and it says to be a member you gotta major in biological sciences (biology, zoology, ecology, genetics, shit like that.), “be in the top academic tier, be invited or apply and get accepted based on your grades, research, or professional standing” - basically, in short, you gotta have a high ass GPA in science.

Knowing that, I see Phi Sigma Bio Sci Honor Society in a siggy, I’m not arguing with that person about science LOL.

I dunno, Phrozen. I mean, based on some others posts, I’m like, SO confused because if sex categories are as structurally flexible as it’s being implied, what test changes someone’s chromosomes? And I’m also genuinely curious, if it’s structural, it should be measurable, right?

And then like, if “cis/trans” means the same thing for gender as it does in chemistry, where’s the spectroscopy test for a structural gender flip? And then, if there isn’t one, what exactly is “flipping” besides the label?