Jump to content

Talk:Cisgender

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trankuility (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 10 October 2017 (→‎Objections to the objections: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comment by 182.239.190.220

Per Funcrunch's suggestion EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article violates basic common understanding of science, human biology and commonsense. It replaces it instead with ideology beliefs and comes off as an opinion piece written by radical gender theorists.

Lets start with the first sentence: "Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth." A complete and total falsehood. A doctor does not choose your sex. Your parents do not choose your sex(though IVF may allow this). Your sex is determined at conception. This is very basic biology, in fact it's so basic it's almost comedy to have this claim made on a wikipedia page. Is this meant to be a joke article?

Humans like most other animal species has our sex determined by our Chromosomes at conception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

It's a complete and total lie to say it's determined at birth by anyone. In fact what we are seeing is some kind of pseudo-God claim from this page, as if doctors or the parents are the ones who decided (and being an Atheist I find this even more laughable).

So my question is, is this page a joke page or are basic scientific principals to be respected and the page changed accordingly? 182.239.190.220 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Sex assignment and Intersex. --NeilN talk to me 02:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many intersex people are cisgender, NeilN, which is why there is a critique here. The argument fails more because it assumes that being cisgender has anything to do with biology or science. Science does tend, however, to defeat simplistic dualities. Trankuility (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed re Trankuility's comment on intersex people, but we really should be hatting or removing unconstructive comments like the IP's. Funcrunch (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to the term

See sex assignment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article assumes that sex is 'assigned' at birth. This questionable notion is POV masquerading as objective fact. The objective fact is that the common experience of humanity and the findings of modern biology say that you are born one sex or the other. Just as well for the people who put forward this queer notion that wiki locked the article. That should prevent any air being let into their smelly little orthodoxy. 86.157.200.252 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cisgender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need for the term

Is "cisgender" an actual term in general use? I can't find it in any of several dictionaries. From the article definition, it would seem to be a special term coined to describe normal gender identity. Was there a need for a special term to describe a virtually universal biological phenomenon? Is it OK to coin new words and then devote an entire Wikipedia article to them? If so, are there any limits on the process, or is it entirely open? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to the objections

The objections to the term coming from feminists are all fallacious and fail to appreciate the nuance involved. Scott-Dixon's is essentially already answered further above in the article: For Jessica Cadwallader, cissexual is "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex". Really, cisgender is no different from other terms designating unmarked norms such as heterosexual/straight (we don't say "non-queer") and white (we don't say "non-POC"). Marinucci confuses gender identity with gender expression and sexual orientation. People can be cisgender and still diverge from cultural norms in other ways. They're not marginalised for being trans, they're marginalised for not conforming to normative gender expression or sexual orientation, or both. It's like objecting to the term "heterosexual" because there are women who defy gender norms who are strictly attracted to men (and vice versa). It's conflating different issues.

Glosswitch's piece is even weirder. Basically, it reads like a woman complaining that she is called heterosexual even though she secretly longs to have sex with women. Well duh. Glosswitch's description reads like classic gender dysphoria. Glosswitch explicitly states: "I don’t believe my gender identity is female." It's right up there in the headline: "I don't feel I “match” my gender". Glosswitch shouts from the rooftops: "I'm not a woman!", and feels trapped. Yet Glosswitch refuses to identify as transgender or genderqueer, or anything else but woman. Well, it's your prerogative to do so as a person assigned female at birth, even when your experience sounds like you're gender dysphoric, but then you shouldn't complain when you get lumped in as cisgender. Cisgender women still experience lots of problems, especially sexism, but they don't experience the additional problems transgender people do. Gender is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Or that there are no benefits to being cisgender. That there is no essential gender binary doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a cisgender woman: a person whose assigned gender and gender identity are both female. Cisgender women, by definition, don't hate their cisgender female bodies (and wish to have male-typical bodies instead), even if they hate sexism and gender stereotypes. Glosswitch reads things into the term "cisgender woman" that simply aren't there. If anything, Glosswitch's piece may be a case not against the term cisgender, but sexism, cissexism and compulsory gender assignment; against the idea that biology is destiny and if you're born with a certain type of body, you're not only stuck with cisgender womanhood but also misogyny.

The intersex critique I'm most sympathetic to. Technically, if an intersex person has been assigned a binary gender at birth and ends up identifying with that gender, the definition of "cisgender" is satisfied. Yet, considering the unique position of intersex people and the way they arrive at their gender, even if it happens to agree with the externally imposed gender, it makes sense to criticise that "cisgender" elides these complications. These intersex activists argue that the "native" gender for an intersex person is neither female nor male, but a non-binary identity (sometimes called "intergender"); therefore, an intersex person would only be cisgender if they do not identify with a binary gender. Hence ipso gender for intersex people who agree with their gender assignment. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM Trankuility (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cisgender&oldid=804693636"