Talk:Cisgender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018[edit]

Cisgender is the gender of a person to which is their natural identity. Such as a person born with a natural penis is a male human, and a person born with a vagina is a woman Eggs11 (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done, since this isn't an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Neologism[edit]

I removed the sentence referring to Costello's neologism "ipso gender". While I personally find this term clever, and apt, and hope it catches on, it's not our business as editors to make that kind of judgment and include a term in an article that is very clearly a neologism. A check on Google Scholar shows few citations, and those that are there, are either all co-authored by Costello, or are false positives (watch the commas, and context: However, the variables that remained significant in the logistic regression models (table 2) were GHQ status in all instruments, SAPASI in Skindex-29 and IPSO, gender in IPSO and guttate type in DLQI.) The NY Times reference is, of course, a reliable source, but in this case it is not an independent source, as the cited article was also written by Costello. Even if the term was "used routinely within" the field of gender scholarship, it would still qualify as a neologism per MOS:NEO, but the term isn't widely used with in the field, let alone outside it; it's more of a proto-neologism than a neologism. Wikipedia is a follower, not a leader, and we shouldn't be promoting a neologism that isn't yet used by a significant number of independent, secondary sources. When it is, we can add it back. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019[edit]

Hi. I just wanted you to correct the definition for "cisgender" It states that sex is "assigned" and I find this to be inaccurate due to the implication that biology doesn't matter and it's all a social construct... Which it isn't. Please correct this, wikipedia staff... We are all about science here. I even made my account just today to edit this because I, as a physician, consider it to be misinformative for the general public. Thanks in advance. XXMilenarioXx (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disclusion of alternate definition - no credible source.[edit]

The definition of cisgender in this article includes a peculiar alternative definition that is not particularly well written, confusing, and lacks a credible source. "Cisgender may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex"."

The cited source for this definition comes from the book "The Counselors Companion: What Every Beginning Counselor Needs to Know", chapter 4 titled "Multicultural Intricacies in Professional Counseling", authored by Hugh C. Crethar & Laurie Vargas. [1] On the topic of Cisgender, it simply states the single sentence that the wiki-article quoted. "People who possess a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex." The book offers no further citation for the origin of this definition, and the subject of Cisgender is not further discussed or explained. The term "Cisgender" occurs three times in the book, and two of them are just index references for the previously quoted entry. This is not an appropriate resource to offer a definition for "Cisgender" that sits in the introductory paragraph for this wiki article. It might be useful as a potential alternate definition, but even in that case, I would like to see a more robust body of work that explains this definition more thoroughly. As it stands, this book does not strive to discuss Cisgender in any meaningful way, as its principle topic is meant to be a resource for counselors. And this definition does not make sense in terms of being the "opposite of Transgender", which is described in this book as "A Person whose gender identity does not match her or his assigned gender (gender assignment is usually based on a biological physical sex."

In fact, I struggle to make sense of the alternate definition in any context. It hinges the application of cisgender to what "society considers appropriate for one's sex". I assume that the use of the term "sex" in this case refers to the subjects assigned biological sex at birth, but I fail to see how gender roles are the contingent factor of note. My read on this would suggest that a male is not cisgender if they perform typically feminine gender roles. So for example a male who is the primary caregiver for a child, could claim to not be cisgender, or a woman who becomes a professional engineer could claim to not be cisgender, as these roles have historically been gendered by society.

The primary definition of cisgender is sufficient, and the alternate definition seems suspect, due to the lack of academic resources supporting it.

- Crethar, H. C. & Vargas, L. A. (2007). Multicultural intricacies in professional counseling. In J. Gregoire & C. Jungers (Eds.), The counselor's companion: What every beginning counselor needs to know. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-5684-6. p. 59.

Attercob (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You make good points. The text seems to be the result of this edit. Flyer subsequently restored the more coherent and accurate wording, but the "alternative" wording was left in. As you note, however, it's poorly sourced. It may also run afoul of WP:LEAD, in that the article body never again discusses or even mentions gender roles. I'm going to boldly remove it on this basis. -sche (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I was trying to compromise by leaving it in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Crethar, Hugh C; Vargas, Laurie (2007). Multicultural intricacies in professional counseling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 59. ISBN 0-8058-5684-6.

Who the heck is Glosswitch[edit]

Glosswitch wrote in the British magazine the New Statesman that if an essential gender binary does not exist, then the idea that one's identity matches their gender is maintaining a stereotype.

Seems to me that the article should establish who this person is if it's going to quote them. Random op-ed or someone with actual reasoned opinions? -- User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Urgal's proposed change to the lede[edit]

@Urgal: Hi! Would you like to discuss an addition to the lede? [1]

It seems you want to change the lede from

Cisgender (sometimes cissexual, often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.

to

Cisgender (sometimes cissexual, often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth, which is the case for most people.

I've made this section on the talk page for you, and explained the change you'd like to make. Now all you need to do is answer one question: why do you think this change is necessary? Thank you. --Wickedterrier (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for adding this to the talk page. Wikipedia is about adding information. And I added an extra piece of information that is correct and provided a reliable source. I don't know why this is such a big deal for some people... The reason this change is necessary is that a lot of people (including me) are/were confused what "cisgender" means and don't know that (in most cases) they are in fact cisgendered individuals. By adding my piece of information, this confusion can be avoided. Just stating that cisgender is "a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth" is NOT enough to clear out confusion. --Urgal (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
So "the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" according to MOS:LEAD. Right now the info you added is not in the article elsewhere. Beyond that, the RS you cited does not even contain the word cisgender. The article itself is meant to be a reflection of what RS have to say about the topic itself. If sources that are primarily about cisgender people do not really cover any estimate for how many people are cisgender, it would be original research to look at population studies of transgender people and extrapolate from there. Rab V (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree regarding LEAD, but I think WP:CALC would apply to any extrapolations. The current working definitions of transgender/cisgender are mutually exclusive and together are exhaustive. But that info would belong in the body of the article first. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about that and I was hesitant since it is a bit unclear that everyone not transgender would consider themselves cisgender. For example, there are people who are questioning or may come out in the future, intersex people, nonbinary people who might not call themselves trans, or people from culture's with different gender systems (ex. where would hijra or two spirit people fall.) Population studies around gender and sexual minorities are kind of messy and finding the right wording takes a lot of work. I'd be hesitant to use these calculations to calculate populations other than exactly what they are meant to represent. I'm a bit unsure if this is too nitpicking but I'd tend towards caution. Rab V (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Most people don't know that 99% of the population is cisgender. Don't you guys think it is important to make this clear in the article? Isn't Wikipedia about sharing information? How is an extra piece of info a bad thing/unnecessary?? --Urgal (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Rab that we need sources directly giving a figure for "cisgender", as it's not the case that everyone not trans is cis (besides non-binary/genderqueer people and those in established third gender categories Rab mentions, there is also some discussion over how to consider intersex people—see discussions of the neologism ipso gender—and people who are unsure or questioning). This survey seems to report that between 88–97% of people in the US in different age groups are cisgender—and it can be noted that most of the non-cisgender people are not trans, btw—which might be useful as one source for a claim (in the article body) like "[a 2017 GLAAD survey found that] most Americans are cisgender", but ideally we would like more sources (especially given known issues regarding respondents misreporting), and sources for more than just the US. -sche (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
At the same time, I am sympathetic to the idea that I may be nitpicking; after all if a secondary source used trans population studies to estimate most of the US population is cis I'd see that as OK to use. Still I am partly worried that secondary sources don't establish number of cis people is a salient enough topic to be included and partly worried that we might use trans population studies to estimate cisgender population in a way that is sloppy. Rab V (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Then why not simply write "[...]which is the case for most people." without referencing the study? I don't think you necessarily need a study to confirm that claim. --Urgal (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rab V: So why do you keep removing my edit. Because it hurts your feelings? That is the only plausible reason at this point. Absolutely nothing about the extra information is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urgal (talkcontribs) 18:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to have another try at discussing this, consider being civil. No need for weird jabs, they won't help us reach a resolution. For more info, WP:CIVIL. Rab V (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
So why do you keep removing my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urgal (talkcontribs) 19:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Issues mentioned earlier I still have concerns with: 1. info should be in body of article if they are in lead 2.I don't know of population studies for cis people and it is not clear that trans population studies are a good way to measure them 3. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, basically if secondary sources about cis people do not or only rarely discuss how many cis people there are, we shouldn't add it to the lead and probably not the article. Rab V (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been trying to find statistics / sources with a figure we could use, and having little luck. This paper and this identically-titled paper by a different author say in their glossary definitions of cisgender that "'the vast majority of people are cisgender' (Teich, 2010)", but the fact that they only mention it in passing in their glossary and moreover are nominally by different authors from different places graduating in different years yet contain so much overlap raises doubts about their reliability. They're citing this book, which is AFAICT about the US population, and does make the claim in question albeit in passing. Together with the other study cited above, perhaps that book would be enough to support a statement along the lines of "Most people in the United States are cisgender", but I'm having a hard time nailing down stats from anywhere else. (WP:SYNTH-etically guessing a number based on trans figures is iffy, for the reasons outlined above; perhaps some would argue it is tolerable as a WP:BLUE issue, but in this case, we're talking about the article on the topic itself, where one would need to cite that the sky is blue, IMO.) -sche (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

AN3 report, for the record: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Urgal_reported_by_User:EvergreenFir_(Result:_). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't be the one thats DELETING information be reported instead of the one who is adding information? What even is this right now?
Addition or removal of text is irrelevant to edit warning. Moreover, your text addition is disputed and you fail to follow WP:BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)