Talk:Cisgender

Origins

It should probably be noted that around a century ago German sexologists were using the trans/cis labels for describing the way people dressed. Dr. Ernst Buchard in his 1914 'Lexikon des gesamten Sexuallebens' defined Cisvestitismus and Transvestitsmus. Here's the definition of Cisvestitismus. http://i.imgur.com/IEd7Exc.jpg Ehipassiko (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible Interpretation as a Slur

Clearly, this term is considered a derogatory term or a slur by many cis / non-trans (I only use that term to make sure that I am understood) individuals. A section is needed to let the reader know that this is the case. I don't think this should be controversial. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the use of the term knows this to be a major issue with the use of the term. In addition, stating that this problem exists does not argue against the use of the term - it merely presents important facts about the subject of this article (the term cisgender). And yes, I have heard the term used as a slur. The point to adding the section (with references) is how it is perceived by those so labeled. It is irrelevant if they should be offended or if the term has nice latin language origins. Tim Neely 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is? I've never heard it used that way. But I hear it used at my very liberal liberal arts college, so... 132.162.81.146 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some people take it that way, yeah. Which is ironic, when one of the most useful thing about the word cisgender is that it *avoids* value judgements like calling people whose physical and psycological gender are the same 'normal'. Euchrid (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is insulting, and limiting. The implied dichotomy reinforces sexual stereotypes - somebody is either trans- or cis- in their sexuality, which is limiting human experience and suggesting that identity has to be simply a sexual matter. A human being is a human being and can decide on his behaviour, within the bounds of good manners, decency and not harming others, to be as he wishes - he can be asexual or adopt characteristics that align with his biological sex or not, without there needing to be a label to box him into a category. [noting that, in English, 'he' as a pronoun, unfortunately slightly discriminatory towards men as there is no uniquely masculine pronoun, means both 'he' and 'she'].

105.237.67.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no doubt that there are many femnists who consider it a slur but I don't think there hasn't been much organized push back against the word's use for Reliable sources to report on. I did just put in some opinion from the National Review which expresses intelligent criticism of the term. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Transgender sidebar

So, the {{Transgender sidebar}} has recently been removed by an editor who objected that cisgender is precisely not about transgender issues. While technically true, I still feel that those drawn to this page will likely be those interested in gender studies and/or transgender issues. I'd therefore argue the template is useful. What do you think? NauticaShades 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, well, barring any objections I'm going to put it back, then. NauticaShades 02:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the transgender sidebar. This article is not about "transgender", it's about "cisgender". The forgery of the two is not only misleading but hurtful to those who find the slur "cis" commonly used by transgenders to be offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.175.114 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should be in. The word is part of both gender and transgender theory and is most commonly used (NOT as a slur, in my experience) by trans people. I am cis myself, and I don't think that there are any negative connotations to the word. Euchrid (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't about transgender. As you yourself say, this is a word mainly used by transgenders. If the sidebar is included, that's akin to saying that the topic can't exist outside of the scope of transgender theory. It's a chicken and egg issue. But the article, as many have already agreed, is not about transgender. That's like putting a mashed potatoes sidebar in with the gravy article. Yes, they do go together, but that reflects very un-neutral opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.175.114 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that I don't see the sidebar as restrictive. To me, it wouldn't say tha the word only exists in transgender theory, merely that it is a part of it, that it emerged from it. It wouldn't restrict it from existing in other contexts, or represent a limitation on its usage. I don't think that it's un-neutral to say that the word is a result of transgender theory - there's no value judgement there, or statement of validity. Euchrid (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cisgender is used as a slur by transgenders to describe non transgender persons

Cisgender is not used by anyone outside the transgender community, by anyone who is not transgender, save for what might be a handful of gender studies graduate students in an ivory tower or two. The neutrality of this article needs to be seriously addressed, or the article must be considered for deletion, for supporting and validating what equates to nothing less than hate speech. In practice, a natrual born "man" or natural born "woman, indeed any human being, would never even hear the word cisgender or the Latin prefix "cis" in reference to gender identity anywhere outside of 1, the internet, 2, various online and social media fora such as twitter, where "cis", and especially "cisphobe" and "cisphobic" are commonly used by transgender people in rants about, essentially, hating privilege of 1, natural born heterosexual women, 2, natural born heterosexual men, 3, members of the "mainstream" gay community, and 4, basically any outsider who even asks what the word "cis" means and why they are using it. Since "cisgender" is not in dictionaries, and because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this neologism ought to be described as a hateful hate speech charged slur that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.175.114 (talk • contribs) 2013-01-15 14:40:30 (UTC)

As a cis female, I don't see any slur here. Establishing a 'norm' to gender and sexuality by only having a word for those who do not fit said 'norm' is cissexist. Imagine, for a moment if you were blue skinned, and everyone else had yellow skin, but because they all had yellow skin there wasn't even a word for yellow. It's a matter of simple semantics- communication must not be biased, and should observe all sides of all opinions. You cannot put a cap on human language.

Since you use the word to describe yourself and also incorrectly (ie. you cannot be a cis female, only a cis woman) it would seem you haven't the knowledge to judge what 'cis' implies or its reach which offends not just feminists, but loads of people far from the feminist spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That is because YOU give no meaning to that label. I.e. Like an American might not mind being called a gaijin in USA, by other gaijins. He/she may even find it "cool". You don't mind it, and you even accept it as a description of yourself cause you don't see anything negative attached to it. Such is your PERSONAL view on it. BUT... it is nonetheless a LABEL, a made up one, and used by a very tiny part of the population to LABEL those who are NOT LIKE THEM. It's not as if your skin is blue in a world of yellow-skinned people. It's as if a blue-skinned minority suddenly decides to impose on everyone else an idea that anyone who is not blue-skinned is red-skinned - as "non-blue equals red. Therefore, red-skinned." It is a made up description based on absence of attributes, NOT on actual attributes a person possesses. It's like referring to a woman as a "not-man". --37.203.106.100 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a patently absurd comparison. Cis is merely the opposite of trans, just as "heterosexual" is the opposite of "homosexual". Being cisgender is an attribute just as being heterosexual is an attribute. Besides, "heterosexual" didn't enter common lexicon until the 1960s, and had to be "made-up", but that hardly means the word is evil in some way.. I think your objections are based less on good semantics and more on your personal discomfort with transgendered people. Asarelah (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There are, of course, people who use the word to be intentionally cruel, but abusing a language does not invalidate those who use it respectfully.Coriander (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. The fact that a tiny minority in the trans community consider 'cis' to be an insult, that doesn't change the definition or the meaning of the word for most contexts. Euchrid (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This above statement is patently dishonest. A majority,not a tiny minority, of people take issue with cis. And I live in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear the term cisgender quite often from non-trans people, and I've never heard it used as a insult. But then again, I live in Oakland, not Oklahoma. Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've ONLY ever heard it used as an insult. I'm very suprised the article doesn't touch on the subject, I'm sure many other normal people (sorry, 'cis' people) have only ever heard it as an insult too. Most of the time with the reaction of "what the shit is 'cis'? You hate normal people so much you have to invent new terminology??"

Material added to articles needs to be supported by a reliable source. If you have a legitimate desire to improve this article please suggest one. And please sign your comments, you can do so by typing four tildes while logged into your account. Euchrid (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the paragraph at the top, I do agree that "cis" has definitely taken on all the baggage of any other slur. Google or search Reddit for phrases like "cishet" and "die cis scum" and begin reading. The use of cis as a slur is (unfortunately) very well established and trivially available by searching the Internet. It is unfortunate this word is so often paired with (justified) anger, because that is the way most cis people "discover" the word! Perhaps we could have a more neutral tone to the paragraph that explains how cis came to have a reputation as a slur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris smith21579 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you search "die cis scum" you're going to get writing by people who think that cis people are scum who should die. That stands to reason. It doesn't indicate, however, that that's the most prominent or even a significant usage of the term. If you search 'cisgender', a far more neutral term, all the top articles are simple definitions without any judgment attached. Surely if 'cisgender' were an inherently hateful term, the to results would be, well, hateful? Euchrid (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually came to this Wikipedia entry because people were being stereotyped as "CIS" and bashed because of this and I didn't know what it referred to. I knew it had something to do with sexuality. But it was definitely used to talk negatively about other people. I didn't know there was a connection to transexuality. I just know that "CIS people" were being insulted and I saw this on Twitter and on a few blogs (there seems to be some dispute in the UK right now between some trans bloggers and some radical feminists). I don't know if I want to provide a link to an individual person's blog because I do want them to experience harassment, even if they are using CIS as an expression to lump together those who disagree with them and their stance on gender politics.

I do think it's appropriate to say somewhere in this entry that this is a term that isn't typically used for self-identification but one that is applied to "the other", even if the other is a majority of people in society. It also seems to be a term rejected by some feminists who want to reduce or even eliminate the significance of biologically-based gender terms. FWIW, I've taken a fair number of gender studies classes over the past 15 years and I had never encountered this term before social media. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This article (Footnote 8) at http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2009/09/17/jeez-louise-this-whole-cisgender-thing/ expresses much of what I said above and is already being cited in the article. It's a cisgender woman's argument that to many trans people it is the equivalent of "transphobic" and how she rejects the label for herself. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The word seems pointless, redundant, and only seems fitting of a slur. I've never heard of this word until today when a transfriend called me it. I asked what it was and he said that it meant people like me, people who were as we are. I said, so you mean normal? Of course he got pissed off, but that is exactly what it means. Cis means "normal," it means "the standard." You are born with a penis, you feel you're a man and act manly. You have a vagina, you feel you're a female and you act like a woman. That is the going norm. So to define the norm seems pointless and only befitting of a slur. It also seems like a pretty weak way to get yourself published in some scientific journal. 65.28.175.48 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this is a neologism and a slur - here's the proof: it isn't used by the "cis" people themselves. Think of the words "black, African-American, even colored and negro (yep, depending on who you speak with, and where you are in the world, you'd be surprised to hear that some still use terms that aren't normally used - not in the USA anyway) how they are all used by people both inside and outside that ethnic/racial group. (Let's not bring up the other N word - this is just an example - although it is also used/abused by those inside and outside so maybe that strengthens my point.) There is "normal" and "abnormal" - are you going to cook up "cisnormal" next? Cis-anything is an absurd word - outside of an academic paper in one of the fields that obsess over this topic. Thomas (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The important thing is to get rid of all the NON-RS sources which may or may not use it that way and leave it to the RS sources to describe. I haven't seen any opposition to doing that, so I will. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy

• This doesn't exactly explain why the exact same statement is repeated. If the statement were restated a different way, then it would make sense. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar first sentence

There are 2 instances of plural pronouns ("they" and "their") with singular antecedents, should be changed to singular pronouns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobSundquist (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Given the nature of the article, use of the singular they seems appropriate here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View, Statements of Opinion, Self-published sources

Hungerford's critique is crucial to understanding how 'cis' a term intended to level the playing field of trans and non-trans individuals actually erases the difference of what feminist theory views as male privilege and the social oppression resultant of male supremacy. In other words, 'cis' renders both men and women equal in a world where the political, economic and social differences between men and women are far from equal.'Italic text

1) The way this paragraph is phrased states as fact that cis erases male privilege and that Hungerford's critique explains how this happens. It is Hungerford's view that cis erases male privilege, but this is only one point of view. The paragraph should be rephrased.

This is why it is an interpretation of the article. It should not be rephrased because it is clearly surmising the arguements therein. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

HALF OF THIS ENTIRE PAGE IS FROM INTERNET CHATTER AND BLOGS OR BOOKS THAT ARE NOT PEER-REVIEWED! Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

2) The article appears on a group blog so is a self-published source. The radical feminist view point should be sourced to peer reviewed articles written by academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.180.202 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Furthermore, this section has a far-from-neutral tone, to the point that it seems deliberate:

Arguing that 'cis' is a form of 'specieism,' Vigo's essay takes to task the offense that 'cis' creates, reminding the reader of the historical dangers of essentializing racial, ethnic or other forms of somatic difference. Ultimately part of Vigo's essay demonstrates how cisgenderism is harmful to the construction of dialogue between those who are supportive of transgender persons while also protective of their right not to be named and those trans* individuals who seek out identity in part through linguistic re-namings of the self while also imposing prefixes onto those who do not share that modifier.

"Takes to task the offense that 'cis' creates" blames the term for offending and casts the isolated essay in an authoritative position. "Vigo's essay demonstrates how cisgenderism is harmful" implies agreement or indisputable, self-evident factuality in Vigo's arguments. "Their right not to be named" assumes a right that is not self-evident or commonly recognized (society normally conflates gender and sex as labels; most people are ignorant of the possibility of disputing these "names"). "Imposing" is a non-neutral interpretation of unintended connotation; for lack of socially conformist force (use of "cisgender" is far from conformist), "cisgender" cannot be assumed to "impose" without evidence, which this section does not provide currently. This section as a whole also lacks any response to these criticisms, though there is certainly more room for disagreement than its tone admits. The tile of this section itself is non-neutral: "problems" implies greater legitimacy to these criticisms than does "criticisms," which is more common on other Wikipedia pages, even where empirical research evidence exists to support the criticisms. As the above comment points out, points of view offered here are very limited, and far from satisfying any evidential standard for self-sufficiency. Alousybum (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree--this term IS applied by people to unwilling objects of this labeling. This is the definition of imposing. You can see hundreds of interenet discussions where people object to this and name this even as violence. I these above critiques are terribly biased taking issue with an objective observation of 'linguistic bullying' which does go on around this term. As trans persons will tell you they dislike certain labels,so too do women and men refuse this term. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As for lacking response to these criticisms, hmmm...This sounds like a derail. There is no response AT ALL given to any of the pro-cis arguments. I think this is a non-issues. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are dozens of essays/articles written about this. I don't know who you have editing out academic discussion here, but this is dishonest. There is a whole body of academic discourse around this matter and the articles cited are fair. You speak of neutrality but you have Serrano in this entry which is VERY problematic as this person is not neutral at all. Serrano's work focuses on autobiography, and this person is not a scholar in this field. So you have essentially created a dichotomy of women's voices which don't matter even if they work in this field and then trans person's who autobiography (not peer-reviewed by the way) carpets the use of a word which many men and women do find dehumanizing. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The whole section was based on three opinion pieces (two blog posts and an online newsletter). Linking them together to indicate a debate is original research unless reliable sources are supplied to validate this fact. Moreover, the text itself did not describe the criticisms in neutral terms, or even in third-person; rather, it described the criticisms - valid or not, I have no position here - as self-evident. I've removed the whole section for now; it should be reinstated only if the text is much improved, and if some reliable sources are found to describe the ongoing academic debate around this term, if indeed it does exist. NauticaShades 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• This section is based on two pieces--a journal (Counterpunch is a journal) and an online journal. There is not linking to create a debate. This debate is active from just this week what Piers Morgan experienced. You are attempting to render this critique as subjective when I have just read it over thrice and find it to be quite objective. You clearly are not in gender studies but this debate is alive and kicking (ie. MacKinnon, Jeffreys, Milinovich, Glosswitch, and so many many more). Journalism is tackling this issue moreso than academia today. Also you fail to take into account the PC culture which is keeping many fearful for speaking out, hence blogs replace this. I think the problem with this wiki entry is that you have only presented half of the definition. Cis is completely offensive to numerous people and it is amazing that any entry does not deal with the contesting voices for this term. By the way Vigo is a gender theorist and has published widely on this subject.Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It is very hard to follow the discussion when you post in multiple places, and when you disrupt the chronological order of posts. Please try to post below previous messages in a discussion. There is nothing wrong per se with including criticisms of the term cisgender, although Wikipedia conventions tend to recommend avoiding a section devoted entirely to criticism if the discussion can be better incorporated in the text. However, the section you have now re-included contains a number of unreliable sources (three blogs). It mentions an article by Julian Vigo but does not reference it. There, finally, also a piece from the New Statesman, which does meet reliable source standards. Perhaps you can rework your section from this piece, perhaps using others from major publications. But be aware that what is really needed are reliable sources that discuss the debate, rather than participate in it. At the moment the text is not written in plain, encyclopedic English, and it is not neutral in tone: i.e., it makes arguments rather than discussing them. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a scholarly journal, or a publisher of original thought. An encyclopaedia is certainly not the place to advance a scholarly argument in the gender studies field. I can try to help you rework your section if you wish, but let's discuss it on the talk page instead of editing back and forth on the page itself.
  • One more thing: you said that "half of this entire page is from internet chatter and blogs." That is clearly not the case; as you can see from the references section, nearly all of the sources are from scholarly journals. There is, I admit, one section citing a blog (by Helen Boyd). You're right about that - I've removed it for the sake of consistency. NauticaShades 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Place in everyday conversations and elephant in the room

I think this article should definitely address the niche usage of this expression. For simplicity's sake, someone might probably also want to add "normal" in the description. (normal: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.)128.79.0.176 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Assigned at birth

this article repeatedly uses the phrase "sex marker they were assigned at birth". Not being snarky here, I may genuinely not understand what I am reading, but aren't "sex markers" assigned at conception? meaning, at the moment when either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome sperm wins the race to the egg? Now it is true that (even in the era of 4d ultrasounds) that you never know the baby's sex marker for certain until after birth, however, those markers are "assigned" at the moment of conception, right? I will give someone a chance to refute me here, but I think this should be edited.24.220.174.68 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I only found one reference to this phrase, but I corrected it to "sex", seeing as it is this that is assigned at birth. NauticaShades 21:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sex is not assigned at birth... Seriously, am I missing something here? When we say "sex" we are referring to the male/female binary choice. That is to say, a new baby is either an XX or an XY, with genitalia being the evidence of which it is. Right? And this is not "assigned" at "birth" it is ordained from the moment of conception. For real, I am not trying to mud the waters here, I don't understand how this is even under discussion, it seems a self-evident truth to me. Can someone please explain how I am wrong? 24.220.174.68 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

per this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#.C2.ADContent we have this: "be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something. be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. Footnotes and links to other pages may be used for further clarification."

Not only is factually wrong to say that "sex markers are assigned at birth" it is unclear and unnecessarily verbose. For example, rather than saying " where an individual's experience of their own gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth." this article should say " where an individual's experience of their own gender matches their sex". I am editing to reflect this. 24.220.174.68 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)|

My edits are being reverted with no explanation and no attempt to build consensus, in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_revert_during_talk_page_discussions#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages. I am going to revert back to my edit, I am not trying to start an edit war, however user Flyer22 is violating wikipedia policy here. Flyer 22 if you are reading this can you at least explain why you disagree with my edits (and why you did not state your disagreement before simply deleting my edits)? 24.220.174.68 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sex [is] the biological distinction between male and female." and "The World Health Organization (WHO) similarly states that "'[s]ex' refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women". These characteristics can change via surgery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if we agree that sex can be changed via surgery, is it incorrect to state that a person's sex is determined at conception, rather than birth? Also, how does surgery change your X into anY or vice versa. 24.220.174.68 (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

IP, I responded here on my talk page. I was not violating policy. As for the rest... If you read (in whole or significantly in part) the Sex assignment, Gender and Sex and gender distinction articles, you may be able to get a better understanding of what is meant by "sex assignment," which is also sometimes called "gender assignment." It is true that, due to the chromosomal makeup, scientists generally do not look at sex (the biological state of being male or female) as something that can be changed, though there are biological aspects that can be changed via hormones and/or surgery (which NeilN touched on above), the sex and gender distinction topic is more complicated than what you are perceiving it to be. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not always. Please read this. It not always as simple as you assume and "at birth" is more accurate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now at the three revert point, with absolutely no attempt to build consensus. Disagree with me on my edits if you want, but you are not doing so within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. I'm not really an expert on this, but my understanding was that editors such as yourself own neither Wikipedia nor the articles; it is a consensus based collaborative effort. Please attempt to build a consensus with me before reverting me for a fourth time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.174.68 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor has been reported for breaking WP:3RR. And obviously doesn't understand WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You have now reverted four times. I only reverted 3. The three revert rule tells me not to revert more than three times, so I will not do that. Bit you must know that you are in violation of policy. It is obvious to me that you are very protective of this article and you are violating Wikipedia policy to protect it. 24.220.174.68 (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You must be confusing me with NeilN; we are two different people. I reverted you twice. NeilN reverted you twice. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

When your block expires: Articles such as these must be edited with care. The wording you were changing has been there since at least last June. It's okay if you want to change it, but if someone objects, it needs to go back to the way it was until the dispute has been settled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are people who are sex-assigned at birth as male or female who have not been XY and XX accordingly. It's true in the general case but not always. See complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, De la Chapelle syndrome and 5-alpha-reductase deficiency for exceptions. Saying 'assigned at birth' is more correct here - Alison ^❤ 09:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm less fascinated by the actual discussion, as I am by the fact that Wikipedia allows 2 or more editors to gang up on another editor to circumvent the 3RR rule. That's intellectually dishonest, wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not when the editor completely refuses to follow WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I love it when cyber-bullies hide behind the rules to rationalise their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As a non-editor who turned up at this page after reading an interesting article in the Guardian by Fred McConnell which used the term cisgender, the article's unquestioning statement of the view that sex is something "assigned at birth" really jarred with me. On this point, the tone of this article clearly strays away from careful neutrality and takes sides in an argument. Most authorities (judging by the Wiki page on sex and gender) appear to hold the view that sex is something biological - that is, it is assigned before birth, insofar as the chromosomes, gametes, and sex organs which are normally described as male and female unquestionably exist before birth. In that sense, when the doctor says, "it's a boy", what he is assigning is a gender, not a sex. The idea that sex is something "assigned" at birth by human decree is a view that's taken (again, referring to the same wikipedia article) only by some social scientists. The view that sex divisions are a social construction is a minority position. I'm not saying it is wrong, necessarily, only that there is a clearly a controversy here, and the article has clearly taken a side. Sorry for not editing the article myself, I'm not going to sign up to Wikipedia just to participate in this particular dispute, but I thought I would drop in here to say that this section of the article seemed highly biased and undermined the authority of the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.141.57 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Same non-editor, back for more. This expression seems doubly unjustified considering that the introduction to THIS VERY ARTICLE refers to the assignation of gender, not sex. What's more, this is the only occasion when the notion of "assigning" either gender or sex is backed up with a footnote. Where's the attribution? This has obviously got to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.141.57 (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, 3rd comment. So I see now that the first mention of sex being assigned DOES get a footnote, but not a quotation. Did what I said I wouldn't do and signed up to an account so I can make this edit in an accountable way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdMB1 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Have now changed references of sex assignation at birth to gender assignation. Aside from the points I made above (basically, the previous state of the article was arguing one side of a controversy) I think this edit is fully justified by reference to the first source cited in the article, which can be found here. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iGYxbNBN8XcC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Multicultural+intricacies+in+professional+counseling&source=bl&ots=GKr_BbRhNd&sig=2ezs3y0YZtOqv14D82oVZ5STj9c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cW0tU6rHMaW60wW-94HoCQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=assigned%20at%20birth&f=false

Not only does the article by Crethar and Vargas fail to assert that sex is assigned at birth, it actually mentions "gender assignation." EdMB1 (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And finally before I go away and do something else with my day, here is the definition of "cisgender" as lifted from the cited article and the cited page (61): "Cisgender: People who possess a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex."

This could hardly be clearer. EdMB1 (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that this quote mentions sex and your source has "wrong sex was assigned at birth" I fail to understand why you changed "sex" to "gender". I've undone your change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, EdMB1, with regard to this edit you made, which NeilN reverted, the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources (and non-reliable sources, for that matter) on the topic of sex assignment use the words "sex assignment" instead of "gender assignment," which I noted with this WP:Dummy edit. However, per WP:Alternative title, I added "gender assignment" as an alternative title to the Sex assignment article, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

ME AGAIN! Well, now I have read the Wikipedia page on "Sex assignment", which I probably should have done earlier. I still think it's wrong to refer to sex assignment on this page, but it's worth accounting for why that's the case in light of the fact that this term exists. The page on "sex assignment" begins with a clarification: What the term refers to is "discernment", the recognition of a preexisting sex, not the allocation of a sex to a human which didn't previously have one. To quote: "these adults are not literally choosing a sex to assign to the child." I, and others who have commented here, interpreted this page's use of the term "assigned sex" to mean precisely that people allocate sex categories to babies when they are born. Some people subscribe to this view but it is a controversial one; it's certainly not taken for granted in a similar way in the articles on Gender or Sex and gender distinction. 82.32.141.57 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

EdMB1, make sure to always sign in, so that there is no confusion about who "me again" is. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks - and apologies for any other breaches of protocol. I'm not going to change this article back but I hope that somebody else will come along and do so. Anybody reading this who trusted Wikipedia as an impartial source of information and knew nothing else about sex and gender (unlikely I know!) would come away from it thinking that most authorities subscribe to the view that sex categories are assigned at birth. If you have been assigned something, that means you didn't already have it. When it comes to sex, that is a controversial view. EdMB1 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Human Vector (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) A baby's name is assigned at birth. A baby's sex is classified at birth. (Or pre-natally.) My argument is not that this classification is perfect. It isn't. People are imperfect. Nor do I argue that there are only two classes of sex. If there were, life would be simpler and less interesting. I only argue that we reserve the word "assignment" for cases where an authority makes an arbitrary choice, rather than one whose intent is objective categorization. For example, no authority can tick "female" on the birth certificate of a newborn with male genitals and a Y chromosome, without being successfully challenged. But parents can certainly assign this boy the name "Catherine". 'Assigned at birth' carries the aggrieved tone of a victim of oppression, but it misplaces its grievance. Such errors impede our progress toward justice, clarity and happiness.

Who makes this stuff up?

Serious question. Who founded this term and when? Who uses it (LGBT community, Scientist, psychologists? Is it wiki worthy? I mean people make up lots of terms and slang, many of which are more commonly used. My concern is a niche group of people started using the term and it is not relevant to readers.Mantion (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You can review the origins of the term in the citations of the article (and frankly, using the resources that have been placed in front of you is always preferable to requesting volunteer labor in explaining introductory-level material). You should also note that the provenance of a term is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standard; what is relevant is the existence of focused coverage of the concept in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not a space for your performance art regarding how ridiculous you find people being concerned with matters unfamiliar to you. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As someone who knows nothing about the subject

I'm in the tech sector (don't hold it against me!) and I stumbled onto this article via web surfing. There's a saying in the technology world that may apply: a solution in search of a problem. This neologism doesn't seem to add anything new since it's going to be describing the overwhelming majority of people and plenty of terminology, made subtle through generations of use, seem to be already functioning. That a term can be created to describe a something with respect to a framework is a legitimate use and this is how science and maths work; the framework here being a subset of human sexualy and psychology. And yet, outside of that framework if the term adds nothing new, then apart from fashion why use it?

Just an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.174.7 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking why is the term used or why is there an article on it? If it's the first, that's not really relevant to Wikipedia. We don't really speculate on why things are notable. If you're asking why an article exists, it's because third party sources (books, newspapers, papers, etc.) have covered the concept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Origins, Academic and literary use

I reverted recent removal of content about Volkmar Sigusch's early usage of the term in the Origins subsection, Academic and literary use. The removal was accompanied by a comment that the content is "totally insignificant". When discussing the origins of terminology I think identifying of earliest usage is significant. Jojalozzo 18:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

John Aravosis quote

Yesterday I added a quote from gay activist John Aravosis stating in his blog that cisgender is "a slur against non-trans people." The quote was deleted. The reason given was that blogs are not reliable sources. I reinstated the quote, citing the exception for blogs by recognized authorities. Today the quote was deleted again, but no reason was given. I reinstated again. Please, if you plan on deleting the quote again, state a viable reason. Thank you. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your source doesn't meet WP:NEWSBLOG, not by a long shot. Please find a reliable, encyclopedic source that states the term is "a slur". Furthermore, you have a scenario where a blog states that the blog owner considers the term pejorative: that's basically WP:SPS - Alison ^❤ 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Concur that the source doesn't meet WP:NEWSBLOG and the quote should be removed. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not claiming that Aravosis is an expert specifically on the term cisgender, but he is a prominent activist/commentator in the wider realm of GLBT issues. Also, I think it's worth noting that his quote set off a firestorm. A google search of aravosis cisgender slur generates thousands of hits.-- Scaleshombre (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, searching for the term you suggest shows up that his view is very much on the margins and is in no way indicative of widespread opinion or common usage. He's just a guy who posted a controversial opinion on a blog and set off a backlash. Also, adding it to the article - especially in the lede, as you have - is wayyyy contrary to WP:UNDUE. At the very least, it needs to move into the "Internet use" section - Alison ^❤ 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Alison, I couldn't agree with you more about moving it out of the lede. I'm trying to come up with a good way to word it. If you have something in mind, please, go for it.Scaleshombre (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I'm kind of, er, nonplussed at the assertion that "he is a prominent activist/commentator in the wider realm of GLBT [sic] issues". Aravosis has made it quite clear that he isn't fond of trans inclusion at all. Equivamp - talk 12:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Equivamp makes a good point. I didn't mean to give offense. - Scaleshombre (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Aravosis said, "Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays"?? I have no words ... <picard.jpg> - Alison ^❤ 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Several questionable sources

I agree on Aravosis above, even if his blog is frequently used on Wikipedia as a source; also I couldn't find that "derogatory slur" refers to "cis". So I'm surprised no one has a problem with all of the SPS below which need to go.

• Under "Internet use": all the self-published group and blog postings should go. Otherwise any topic on Wikipedia can have an "Internet use" or "Internet comments" section with such dubious sources.
• "Academic and literary use" includes dead link (Eminism); t-vox.org is an advocacy Wiki and WP doesn't allow Wikis in general.
  

I tend to cut college newspapers some slack myself since they do have editorial boards, so I don't have a problem with a description of or short quote from the KStateCollegian opinion piece. It could be improved here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion of the "cis controversy" on Bilerico, a queer news site, but I am not sure if it would be counted as a reliable source. I may bring it to WP:RSN: http://www.bilerico.com/2009/09/what_does_cisgender_mean.php -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely just a self-published blog source. It's better to remove the Non-RS advocacy sources than to try to balance them with advocacy sources that aren't much better. These debates only become notable when mainstream and/or reputable alternative publications with equally high journalistic standards cover them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that at this diff an editor has removed a comment from a National Review article claiming the individual is an "intern" even though she is described as "an editorial assistant". Meanwhile two comments from a personal blog and a college paper are kept in this section, not to mention the sites I mentioned above. Doesn't seem consistent with WP:RS policy to me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Given lack of response, maybe I'll take to WP:RSN next week. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh?

This is a back-formation. It's ludicrous.````