Cisgender means not transgender. The majority of homosexual people are cisgender. Plenty of transgender people are heterosexual. You could create some puerile argument about 'hetero to what gender" and the answer is that it's irrelevant because, however you cut it,some will be heterosexual and some will be homosexual. Just like everyone else...

Cis and trans are Latin opposites, meaning 'this side' and 'the other side'. Cis and trans are used in chemistry to describe the arrangement of molecules. Funnily enough their linguistic derivatives also exist in Welsh : is and traws.

There's knowledge for you :-)

This is a debate of the utterly unnecessary, adding complexity and cost to an already stretched organisation.

If we are concerned to establish very clear and precise definitions of sex, gender, personal identification etc there must be a reason for so doing.

The motive can only be to treat different characteristics individually - we may need wards or rooms reserved for several separate groups where currently only two exist - male or female (usually defined by identification at birth).

It would be both costly and complex - and why should sexual orientation be treated differently to race, religion, colour etc.

There may be better arguments for simplifying current arrangements. In a world where equality of treatment and opportunity is demanded by all minorities, why have separate facilities anyway.

The NHS exists to both provide health care to all free at the point of use and prioritised on the basis of need - irrespective of religion, race, politivs, sexual orientation etvc etc.

It's all too complicated.

A person whose gender at birth was male now identifies as female and is attracted to those identifying as male.

Is this person (a) homosexual on the basis that his gender at birth was male, or (b) heterosexual on the basis he/she is now attracted to one of what he/she considers the opposite sex.

One either has great sympathy for the feelings of those that are directly impacted or involved in such debates, or regard discussion as a futile waste of time.

I will own up to being swayed towards the latter. People should be treated with respect and free to do that which they chose, providing it does not directly corrupt or impose upon others.

Edited by Terry W on 07/09/2023 at 11:22

I also object to the idea of tampering with birth certificates, which are an official historical record.

My birth certificate records my name as Simon and sex as male.

If I go through the process (currently lengthy and bureaucratic) to get that changed to Simone and female how are you affected?

I also object to the idea of tampering with birth certificates, which are an official historical record.

My birth certificate records my name as Simon and sex as male.

If I go through the process (currently lengthy and bureaucratic) to get that changed to Simone and female how are you affected?

Silly question, as clearly I am not affected at all, and I suppose no-one else is either. Anyone's birth cert records a witnessed historical event, and I think most of us accept that history should not be airbrushed. If you choose to re-register yourself under a different name. that is your choice, just as a deed poll - but that is a new historical event taking place at a later date !

If you are not affected by it then why do you object to it?

You are not airbushing history - you don't backdate your change of gender from when you are born to when you change.