Talk:Cisgender/Archive 2

Language Section is Dubious

I'm not objecting to the content, but as I noted all the sources are primary, which leaves a wide possibility of finding the wrong etymology. Furthermore when you claim that cis- is antonymous to trans- you need to be clear that the use of trans- being discussed is its definition "on the opposite side of" rather than "through" or "such as to change or transfer" (definition example) which seem to fit the term transgender much more closely, but which are not antonyms of cis-. A few reliable third-party sources should clarify this. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: the interpretation of "transgender" in the sense of "'through' or 'such as to change or transfer' which seem to fit the term transgender much more closely" is one which a number of transfolk object to vehemently, since they do not identify themselves as having "changed" their gender. ("Gender" in the sense of gendered identity - though they may have changed their presentation.)-- bonze blayk (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that I'm challenging the research regarding the etymology of cisgender, not the modern usage of transgender which we know has changed over time. I'm not even trying to insert content claiming that it follows this usage, as I don't have any on-topic sources at the moment, only enough to call into question the assumption that The word has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis, meaning "to/this the near side," which is antonymous with the Latin-derived prefix "trans." This usage can be seen in the cis-trans distinction in chemistry, or in the ancient Roman term "Cisalpine Gaul", i.e., "Gaul on this side of the Alps". In the case of gender, however, "cis" refers to the alignment of gender identity with assigned gender. is a trivial statement. We have an uncited section followed by a few self-published articles, followed by a few more primary sources. All I'm asking for is proof that this isn't WP:OR. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I should have just done this from the start. Anyone can re-add reliable content if they like. That's all. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So according to her it was supposed to be a pun. Ha! Somehow this restores my faith in humanity. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should restore your faith in the complexity of humanity, at least? I felt that the link to the explanation of the use of "cis-" and "trans-" in chemistry in the explanation of the origins of the phrase was very helpful, since the chemical diagram gets the core idea across so directly! (If you know a bit of chemistry? YMWV.-)

I'm still scratching my head over exactly what "So it just stands to reason, the apposit (s-(left square bracket)-io-(right square bracket)-c) of Trans- is Cis-(!)" is supposed to mean, but inasmuch as I layer entendres myself "not infrequently" in le mode incomprehensible, and there are subsequently LOLs of recognition? (in the subsequent newsgroup comments - bonze blayk (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)) - I accept that there's got to be something meaningful there? !!! -- thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC) (a/k/a "lasspvax.kevin@cu.ARPA" … ah for the days of yore! when internet discourse - and insults - were soooo much more sophisticated ! -)[reply]

Self-identity?

Out of curiosity, is there anybody who self-identifies as 'cisgender'? Or is it a term purely used by a particular group to describe those who are outside it? Robofish (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(For what it's worth, actually, I'm happy to identify myself as cisgendered. But I'm wondering whether anyone notable has done so.) Robofish (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am cis" has about 1440 google hits now, so I would say so; also, about 200 for "I am cisgender" and 86 for "I am cissexual". SparsityProblem (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be used mostly in academic contexts. Gets thrown around at my liberal arts college a lot. 132.162.81.146 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender vs. Cissexual

...and whether or not these are synonymous. The page as written paints the picture that they are, but if "cis" is no more than the antonym of "trans", and "transgender" and "transsexual" are not entirely synonymous, then "cissexual" and "cisgender" are not either. Namely "cisgender" is the antonym of "transgender" and "cissexual" is the antonym of "transsexual". Just as somebody might identify as transgender but not transsexual, I know people who identify as cissexual but not cisgender. genderhack (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gender and sex are two different things. to say somebody is cissexed is to say they are human. however you can be born male but have the gender association of female 69.165.156.141 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)anon[reply]

Appropriateness

Given that this is pretty much just a definition for a word, isn't it more appropriately placed in wikitionary? 69.156.103.110 15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "normative" would be less laden than "appropriate" here. One can hold to the existence of normative gender roles (however established) without asserting any appropriate, or conversely inappropriate, alternate configurations. 67.255.7.79 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to rewrite much of this article. In an effort to be politically correct, the article is essentially unreadable and impossible to understand. I had to google "define cismale" in order to understand what the term meant. This should be easily ascertainable from the first sentence in the article. Please get over your hangups and fix the article. Tim Neely 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the article altogether -- or significantly shorten to a stub-class article to identify the term as a neologism coined by radical homosexual activists. Thank you. 204.65.0.24 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

204.65.0.24, whoever you are IRL?

I have already addressed Tim Neely's issue in a minor way by clarifying the meaning of cismale in the introduction...)

Thank you very much for sharing your WP:POV based disdain. If you believe that the term "cisgender" is used solely by "radical homosexual activists", I would suggest that you do a bit of research? The scholars who are employing the term in WP:RS publications may - or may not? - be "radical homosexual activists" — (yes, I am laughing over this!).

I believe the term "cisgender" has a complex enough etymology and meaning that a Wikipedia article describing it is justified. -- bonze blayk (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

There may be a slight definitional distinction between cisgender and cissexual, but I think it would be far easier to discuss it on one page. There is already overlap of content on both pages as it stands. Does anyone agree that a merger may be in order? NauticaShad es 22:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me; it seems to me that "cissexual" folk are a subtype of "cisgender" persons anyway. I will support this merger. - bonze blayk (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's the other way around. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - "cissexual" is used to describe "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned" (Julia Serano, as quoted in Cissexual), indicating that they are cisgendered and feel little or no internal conflict over it. For example, it seems to me that a person who is "cisgendered" might at one time have identified as "questioning" their gender identity, but do so no longer? - thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, no one will object if I merge, as long as the distinction is explained in the article? NauticaShad es 10:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, merging. NauticaShad es 15:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NauticaShad es 16:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty parsing first sentence

"In gender studies, cisgender and cissexual are a closely related class of gender identities where..." Should that be "are closely related classes"? (I am not trying to nitpick here, my own grammar is not great, but I do not comprehend the current wording.) 173.172.95.186 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's poorly worded… one thing about it is that cissexual is a subclass of cisgender…

What do you think of this phrasing? …

cisgender and cissexual gender identities are two related types of gender identity where an individual's self-perception and presentation of their gender matches the behaviors…"

thanks… - bonze blayk (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I could actually understand that on first reading it. ;) 173.172.95.186 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I believe I will go ahead and change it… ;-) - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major issues

I marked this for POV issues, although they are not limited to POV issues. My issues here:

Cissexual redirects to cisgender even though they have different meaning and usage.
The article only defines cisgender in the lead.
The article ought to also define cissexual in the lead as long as cissexual redirects here.
There are contested definitions of cisgender. The lead prioritizes one of these definitions, does not address the other definitions, and prioritizes one which accepts gender roles as a given.
The article equates male and masculine identities, and female and feminine identities.

I think this can be fixed, but I can't do this on my own. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To address some of the concerns:

Both concepts are included in the article, but for the sake of clarity. Most readers new to the topic will want to know the difference between the two. They indeed "have different meaning and usage" but this is addressed in the article. The only reason for both definitions being included under Cisgender and not Cissexual is that the former is more common (416,000 Google hits v. 45,400 Google hits).
Actually, both concepts are defined in the lead. There's Schilt & Westbrook on cisgender and Cadwallader on cissexual. But it was a tad confusing, so I've moved the definitions around, and put the bit about gender-normative in a new paragraph. The "Cisgender vs. cissexual" section might need some beefing up too though. Some examples of the categories might be useful.
I don't think the definitions provided treat gender roles as a given. That said, if you have competing definitions from reliable sources, by all means include them (with citations).
You're right about the confusion there on feminine/female and masculine/male, fixed that.

Hope that helps. NauticaShad es 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still problematic. Sorry.

First of all, it's hard to sort out use of "cis" in gender-related contexts from use of "cis" elsewhere, but I get the sense that "cis" is used as a shorthand for "cissexual" not "cisgender."
In gender studies, cisgender and cissexual gender identities are two related types of gender identity where an individual's self-perception and presentation of their gender matches the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one's sex.

One can be cissexual without conforming to "the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one's sex."

The second paragraph doesn't so much define cissexual as define the need for the term.
The cisgender vs. cissexual section provides a better definition. I'd suggest moving Julia Serano's definition into the second paragraph, noting that there are different definitions, and moving the other definitions into the cisgender vs. cissexual section. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I see what you're saying now. You're absolutely right: you can be cissexual without performing the associated gender role. Ok, fixed that in the first sentence. New definition ok? I think that meets both. I've also moved the definitions around per your suggestion. Just one point: I'm not sure if 'cis' (within gender studies) refers to cissexual more than it does to cisgender. Note the Google hits above for the two terms; similarly, Google scholar turns up 516 hits for the cisgender and only 144 for cissexual. NauticaShad es 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's better. Thank you. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. Joja lozzo 18:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Concur that the source doesn't meet WP:NEWSBLOG and the quote should be removed. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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? NauticaShad es 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Popularity by a group (Argumentum ad populum) of an article should not determine the outline or content. Doing so creates an advertising effect instead of an article based on actual facts. Usually when people say, "Well, that's technically true, but...", they are merely attempting to draw you from the actual truth so they can reward themselves with philosophic ego petting and create more loopholes for their agenda. Stick to the rules. For obvious reasons, "cis" in my opinion, is not a good word for "straight". If you think so you are probably "trans" and find it funny to call a straight man "cissy". - User:Topbookclub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.2.134 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This word here

Somebody insisted this had a synonym as a short scrabble word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.59.47 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed count in Scrabble. It was a chemistry term long before it was used as a gender marker. Haikupoet (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OED to add cisgender

Not sure how to stick it in the article, or if it needs to be yet, but the OED will be adding cisgender to its dictionary. Source: [1] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very little info about the origins

When was this term invented? The origin talks about its etymology, but not its history. What is the earliest recorded usage of this word? By whom? To mean what? I belive that this word is relatively "new" as far as English words go, especially considering it's not in the dicitonary.^[1]

I've renamed the "origins" section to etymology. Later when there is information on its origins, if the etymology is related to that information the information on the etymology of the word can be merged back into an "origins" section. Until then I see no reason to confuse the two.

--PaulDejean (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/cisgender

It's in the Oxford English Dictionary ([2]). Also, this article is not about the word itself. That would be stuff for Wikitionary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it was added recently, which contributes to my speculation that this word entered the lexicon recently. Also information about the history of a word is something that belongs in an encyclopedia I believe. An example can be seen in Gay. "The word gay arrived in English during the 12th century from Old French gai, most likely deriving ultimately from a Germanic source." This is the type of information I am considering adding to the article once I do some research and have collected some sources. --PaulDejean (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"does not identify with a gender diverse experience" vs not participating, condoning or actively perpetuating the big bad Cis-Hetero Norm

I'm going to be as concise as I can. see this edit.

I think by evoking 'diversity' in this way, it just makes perfectly clear-eyed, politically savvy, not insensitive cis persons sound like luddites or something. Just because cis persons are cis,--- does not mean we're against diversity.

I may come back later to revise the passage I marked with 'clarify'. thanks.

skak E L 19:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "natal" a synonym?

Just noticed someone changed "natal" to cisgender in an article about hormone replacement therapy and noticed that "natal" is not mentioned anywhere here as a synonym. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a trans person: "Natal woman" is just a fancier way of saying "born woman" (or "born female"). Most trans people currently prefer "assigned fe/male at birth." In the context of the article you cited, I too would prefer "cisgender woman," meaning someone who was assigned female at birth and still agrees with that designation. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Natal" is a very problematic term to distinguish from transgender people since it validates their original assignment. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)|[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

You are clearly blissfully unaware of the experiences and fates of people with ambiguous genitals, who are really assigned sex pretty much completely arbitrarily. And it is now known that intersex people aren't nearly as vanishingly rare as once thought. Sure, you can't know that a baby with typical-looking genitals doesn't identify with what their genitals seem to imply before the child can talk. But even if the genitals look typical, the baby can still be intersex. So, as explained above already, gender/sex is more complicated than "it's got a little sausage between the legs, so it's a boy; it doesn't, so it's a girl" even if non-intersex people always identified as male if their genitals look male-typical and as female if their genitals look female-typical.

And interestingly, the obvious solution, to raise children more gender-neutrally, as radical as it sounds, happened to even be the usual thing to do in European and white American culture as late as the early 20th century (at least as far as clothing and hair were concerned). And it certainly wasn't due to pesky feminists, gender studies majors and social justice activists hanging around and nagging, it was just, you see, normal and self-evident that young children are innocent and pure and should not be gendered ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As for how: Well, to an educated person (i. e., a person with a smattering of Latin or familiarity with classical culture or scientific terminology at least), it's quite obvious that the opposite of "transsexual" is "cissexual", just like the opposite of "Transalpine Gaul" is "Cisalpine Gaul". Like duh.

As for why: Well, it's obviously not nice and rather insulting to call people who are not transgender "normal" because that implies that transgender people are "freaks" – you know, if you don't want to be an asshat, you kind of don't want to imply that. And "non-transgender" still kind of implies that being transgender isn't just as normal and fine as its opposite, sort of like calling men "non-women", and in addition to being perfectly symmetrical and neutral – and obvious if you know a bit of Latin –, "cisgender" is obviously shorter than "non-transgender". Which reasoning the article should explain actually. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See previous section. Also, are you saying a term is useless because it describes a huge majority? Well, take any ethnic group, or even subcultural group: the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived do not belong to that group, yet there is still usually an in-group term for outsiders. Clearly, groups find such terms useful regardless of their own size. I don't think you'd argue Americans are irrelevant just because 96% all people aren't American, and a dedicated term for non-Americans would be pointless. Or how Jews call all non-Jews "Gentiles" or goyim, how dare they come up with such a ridiculous term considering that 99.8% of all people are non-Jewish? Who do they think they are, they are 0.2% and they think they are relevant or something! Maybe your question betrays your own bias that transgender people are not "normal", "healthy" or "relevant" just because you personally happen to not know any? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/cisgender

[1]