Talk:Cisgender/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Disclusion of alternate definition - no credible source.

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. 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

Who the heck is Glosswitch

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

@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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urgal (talk • contribs) 19:35, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

A discussion on whether Cis and Trans should redirect to Cisgender and Transgender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans#Requested_move_4_May_2019

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

non-trans

I was reading some back issues of TransSisters from 1993 (volume 1). It was written by people who were part of the Camp Trans, namely I was reading the interview with Leslie Feinberg. Davina Gabriel used non-trans which is redirected here. Would it be appropriate to add something about this to the article?Fred (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations II Group 7c Proposed Edits

Look out for appropriate terminology and remove any inconsistencies found on the webpage Jacklyn.Ang (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jacklyn.Ang:, Can you elaborate? How are you going to determine what is appropriate, and do you have particular terms in mind? Pinging Shalor.

Btw, I assume by "webpage", you mean the Cisgender article, right? It's not a big deal, but generally, we just call that "the article", rather than "the webpage". Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest being careful to reference any claims added. There is some (quasi-)academic literature on the evolution of language and this term in particular, however finding a widely accepted source may be problematic. Health policy (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Short description

The current {{short description}} is Person whose gender identity matches their assigned sex at birth, which is technically a description of "cisgender person", not "cisgender" — contrast Transgender's short description, Gender identity that does not match sex assigned at birth. I would suggest changing the short description here to something like Gender identity that matches sex assigned at birth. Alternatively, if we decide that it's perhaps easier to understand the description if we let it be about a person, then perhaps the other article's description should be revised... -sche (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Cisgender definition

This is an extremely poor definition of cisgender. I am male, I was born male, I was "assigned" the sex of male at birth, so by this definition, I am cis gender..? It doesn't make sense.

Also, the instruction on here to "Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( 2A02:C7F:2C22:3C00:286C:7FDA:6C12:D129 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC) )" makes no sense, either. Putting 4 tildes does not sign or date anything. Are we supposed to put them before a name and a date? After it? Incredibly poor instruction.

2A02:C7F:2C22:3C00:286C:7FDA:6C12:D129 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Jack. 01st Oct. 2019. 2A02:C7F:2C22:3C00:286C:7FDA:6C12:D129 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes you cisgender if your gender identity is "man". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly --Yhdwww (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Because the term 'gender' is no longer sex-based in definition it would be fair to say many people dispute the term as one applicable to themselves due to the fact that they acknowledge themselves to be male or female based on their biological reality. So the concept of gender to them is meaningless to them. The term cisgender is therefore rejected by many so-called 'cis' people as it is irrelevant to them. It is a term used mainly by the transgender community and others to refer to people who aren't transgender, believing 'gender' to be innate to every person rather than those that simply need gender as an alternative to sex in defining themselves. Therefore I propose something like this:

Cisgender is a term used in the transgender community and elsewhere to refer to people who aren't transgender. Gallovidian85 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Ipso gender" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ipso gender. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

would a Venn Diagram help?

It occurs to me that a Venn Diagram of some of these terms "cisgender," "cissexual," "transgender," "transexual," ... might be useful. I personally find the relationship between these terms a bit hard to keep straight.

--- VanRos Jan 10, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanRos (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@VanRos:, It might, but because terminology in the field is fluid and evolving, and there isn't universal agreement about the definitions, this might be difficult. In any case, any such diagram would have to be found in a reliable source; anything "built here" would likely be considered "original research" and thus prohibited in an article. Conceivably, someone could draw one up and add it to a Talk page just as a way to stimulate discussion about improving the article, but even then you might get pushback about it.

That said, maybe this will help: assuming you already are aware of the differences between sex and gender, and that your confusion is more between cisgender vs. cissexual, and transgender vs. transsexual. If that assumption is correct, then see Transgender#Evolution of transgender terminology, Transgender#Transsexual and its relationship to transgender, Transsexual#Terminology, and Cisgender#Etymology and terminology. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Assignment issue

"sex that they were assigned at birth" - it needs clarification as to who or how it is assigned and why it must be at birth. Missing source.

Required clarification

1. Why it must be at birth when in most cases parents get to know the gender way before birth.
2. How the assignment happens - is it some consensus between a doctor and parents? Or is it just doctor who assigns it?
3. Is it really an assignment as in making a free decision? Or is it rather a finding in which case the word "assignment" should be replaced by determined or better word describing mere declaration of an existing fact that exists independently on investigator's will.

I am not from USA and after reading this I have serious doubt how it works in US. It is really puzzling and does not reflect ways how we determine the gender in our country. Really, really confusing definition. I have an impression that after birth in US there is some guy who flips a coin and assigns the result to the newly born. That should not be the case - wikipedia should be quite unambiguous and clear.

You should rather remove that assignment sentence altogether if you don't make it clear enough. Leaving it there allows completely insane ideas - not all are from US and many don't have an idea how it looks there...

Elixon (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The inability to concisely explain a complex topic is exactly the reason the phrase in question links to the Assigned sex article. "Assigned sex" and "sex assigned at birth" are the phrases used by sources, and so that's what we use. The lead section doesn't need to be sourced, sources are elsewhere in the article. --Equivamp - talk 00:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome, Elixon, to en-wiki. The term has nothing specifically to do with the United States. It is standard usage in reliable sources in English, but is a fairly technical term, and many native speakers who are not concerned with cis or trans issues are not aware of this term, either, so you are in good company in being confused.

There is already an article called Sex assignment, and it is hyperlinked from the first sentence of this article, precisely from the term you are unfamiliar with. Did you not notice the link in the first sentence? It should be blueish in your browser or mobile view. A definition of this term is given in the first sentence of the Sex assignment article, followed by another 40,000 bytes all about this term in great detail. There is no point trying to define here, what is defined in great detail there.

The term "sex assignment" does not require further clarification in *this* article in my opinion, because you would then risk having competing definitions in two different articles, which might then diverge with future edits. More importantly, it shouldn't be defined here, because Wikipedia is a wiki. Much better to keep the definition of "sex assignment" at the article Sex assignment, and simply hyperlink it from here. This is the whole point of a wiki (and in fact, the whole point of hypertext in general, going back to the creation of hypertext transfer protocol, and of the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee).

I hope this helps respond to your concerns. Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that Equivamp wrote approximately the same thing, in fewer words, while I was typing my response to you. Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, linked article Sex assignment clears my misunderstanding up as it clearly states that "sex assignment" is "the determination of an infant's sex". I still maintain that - since it is equivalent - the word *assignment* should be replaced by *determined* because it is obviously much clearer to a wider public and technically interchangeable. Elixon (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The ten assignment is deliberate. It promotes the pseudoscientific idea that gender is a spectrum and that all humans are trans.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Unless you have reliable sources, this is not a forum for you to opine on social science and gender studies regarding transgenderness. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I see said the blind man. Some people are using the technical term "sex assignment", while others are using the language meaning of the word "assignment".

The way the sentence is written, and by Wikipedia rules, the English language meaning should be read. And that's problematic; problems not present when the technical term is used.

Either the sentence should be re-written "matches their sex assignment at birth" (with the existing link) to make clear a specific technical term is intended, or use wording like OED uses "corresponds with their birth sex."

Antifesto (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"their sex assigned at birth". Biological sex is not assigned! It is the result of a biological process that precedes birth. A person's sex is clearly defined by their X/Y chromosomes and independent of any form arbitrary assignment.

Bias issue with quoting

In the section including this partial sentence, "... sex model that fails to account for both the existence of natally [sic] congruent gender non-conforming gender identities, and gender-based discrimination against intersex people based on natal sex characteristics rather than on gender identity or expression, such as "normalizing" infant genital surgeries"

In other locations of the article, when the world "normalizing" is used, it is not quoted. However, in this section "normalizing" is quoted, indicating the author's bias against infant genital surgeries. Glewis104 (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity or expression matches their sex assigned at birth.

Cisgender is opposite transgender, defined on Wikipedia page as: people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth. Miki1787 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works; cisgender is indeed defined more specifically in relation to gender identity. [2] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The better question is, doesn't lumping together "gender identity" and "gender expression" in the Transgender Article imply it's the same as Transvestism (which it of course isn't). I wonder if we should remove that "or gender expression" (or at least clarify it) over there too. (and the above linked source defines "transgender"[3] as based on identity, not expression). Also kinda plays into some of the critiques mentioned (e.g. "i'm inter and nonbinary therefore cis" doesn't quite seem to work in my opinion, since nobody is "assigned nonbinary at birth") 93.235.41.44 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. Transgender is opposite of cisgender. Transgender. "is people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miki1787 (talk • contribs)

How does this work when nobody is assigned a gender but sex is recorded? 49.198.38.238 (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

Please change all instances of "(s)he" or "his/her" to "they/their" and correct "s/he" to "She" when referring to Hilda Viloria. When referring to intersex individuals not only is it easier and much cleaner to use the singular form of "they" it is also closer in the description as they (as clearly stated by Wikipedia's entry on intersex) "are individuals born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". This edit has been made to the below section of the article:

Hida Viloria of Intersex Campaign for Equality notes that, as a person born with an intersex body who has a non-binary sense of gender identity that "matches" their body, they are both cisgender and gender non-conforming, presumably opposites according to cisgender's definition, and that this evidences the term's basis on a binary sex model that does not account for intersex people's existence. She also critiques the fact that the term "sex assigned at birth" is used in one of cisgender's definitions without noting that babies are assigned male or female regardless of intersex status in most of the world, stating that doing so obfuscates the birth of intersex babies and frames gender identity within a binary male/female sex model that fails to account for both the existence of natally congruent gender non-conforming gender identities, and gender-based discrimination against intersex people based on natal sex characteristics rather than on gender identity or expression, such as "normalizing" infant genital surgeries. 69.200.240.146 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, Changed pronouns to "she". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 22:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

why? on Hida Viloria's article "they" is stated as the correct pronoun. and they're quoted, in that same paragraph, stating they don't identify as female. 93.235.41.44 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, have now reopened edit request to change references to Hida Viloria from "she/her" to "they/their/them". Ewave99 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. --Equivamp - talk 22:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

This needs source for the german word "zissexuel", because a quicksearch indicate that words appeared in the early 2010 décade. 85.27.86.213 (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Already sourced to Sigusch, Volkmar (February 1998). "The Neosexual Revolution". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 27 (4): 331–359. doi:10.1023/A:1018715525493. PMID 9681118. S2CID 25826510. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

I would like it if you actually defined 'cis'. Most people coming to this page DO NOT KNOW what it means. You have simply stated it is derived from Latin and is not an antonym of anything else. Why not go that one step further and help people coming to the page who don't know what it is by actually telling them what it means? Molestedmango (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. The article already linked to the wiktionary entry for the prefix, but I went ahead and added the definition here, too. --Equivamp - talk 09:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit a long sentence

Viloria also critiques the fact that the term "sex assigned at birth" is used in one of cisgender's definitions without noting that babies are assigned male or female regardless of intersex status in most of the world, stating that doing so obfuscates the birth of intersex babies and frames gender identity within a binary male/female sex model that fails to account for both the existence of natally congruent gender non-conforming gender identities, and gender-based discrimination against intersex people based on natal sex characteristics rather than on gender identity or expression, such as "normalizing" infant genital surgeries.

These five lines of text are one sentence. That's too much. I had to reread it half a dozen times.

Here's a suggested revision:

Viloria also critiques using the term "sex assigned at birth" to define 'cisgender' without noting that, in most of the world, babies are assigned male or female regardless of intersex status. They argue that this definition obfuscates the birth of intersex babies. Moreover, the term "sex assigned at birth" frames gender identity within a binary male/female sex model that fails to account for the existence of natally-congruent gender-non-conforming gender identities. It also ignores gender-based discrimination against intersex people based on natal sex characteristics, such as "normalizing" infant genital surgeries (in contrast to discrimination based on gender identity or expression).

Ulaniantho (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of word as a slur

I would like to comment on this use of this word as a slur. Many people, myself included, do not like being called cis as it is a word that has been used at us in a disparaging way. Weagesdf (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Weagesdf, while we can't state something so contentious as fact, if reliable sources comment on this as an existing point of view among some, it can be mentioned. Got any sources? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's definitively used as a slur in most discussion, as a way to disqualify non-trans people from the discussion.--2A04:981:2B00:4C00:2C35:65EE:E596:C548 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking into this, I was able to find this paper with the footnote "since as early as 1992, the term ['cis'] has come to replace terms such as ‘not-trans’, ‘born-women/men’, ‘biological women/men’ or ‘natural women/men’, ultimately serving a neutralising function. In resistance to this, many ‘gender critical’ activists claim that cis (like TERF) is a slur." This article says "Is cis a slur? [...] there are certain groups who have tried to claim that it is a slur. This is not true." And Jennie Kermode, Transgender Employees in the Workplace (2017), says "Some people object to the term cisgender and consider it derogatory, but an increasing number of people are using it to describe themselves. This is especially true of the younger generation. It can be shortened to cis".
There are also scattered mentions of specific individuals not wanting to be called cis, likely less important for this article, e.g. Martina Navratilova (mentioned in a paper, which counters than cis is not a slur) and William Shatner (who "went on a tear about the word “cisgender,” claiming that it’s only used in reference to him in order to “harass” or “debase” him", "despite an attempt to clarify for Shatner that "cis" is merely the opposite of "trans" and in no way a slur"). It goes without saying that care would be needed to accurately characterize the low prevalence and low acceptability of the view that cis is a slur. -sche (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Most European countries use a version of the word "negro" to refer to black people. While the term was never meant in a derogatory way, but simply as a description, black communities in many of these countries have protested, and now the term isn't used anymore, because it is felt as derogatory. This firmly puts to rest the rather imperialistic and top-down view of Jennie Kermode.--2A04:981:2B00:4C00:2C35:65EE:E596:C548 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

lol -sche (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Weagesdf: and 2A04, it's not the word cisgender (or cis) itself that is a slur, it's the tone of voice of the person using it, and their intent. Anyone who has heard man or woman used in that same tone of voice in certain circles, knows what I am talking about. The term cisgender is not a slur, but like almost any word referring to a human being, it can be used that way. To Owen Wister's Virginian, son-of-a-bitch wasn't a slur if you smiled when you said it, but if you didn't smile, you might get shot. Oh my god, you're a Wikipedia editor? You've gotta be kidding me, why don't you get a life? Sheesh. Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Well, yes, but that is not really different. Many slurs started out as ordinary words which evolved to become slurs. Take the word "queer." It originally had no relation to homosexuals, but over time the intention, or tone, was used in a derogatory way, making it a slur (though now many argue that it has been "taken back"). I believe it is important to point this out in the page, as not everyone will know that it is being used in a derogatory way towards them. I have a lot of friends who are made fun of who are neurodiverse (new politically correct way of saying mildly autistic, such as Aspergers), who are often made fun of without them realizing it because they find it difficult to parse tonality/intention in daily interactions. Adding that this is used as a slur also brings awareness. I think we can agree that slurs are never a good thing, no matter who they target. Weagesdf (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend adding a subtopic titled "Controversy", rather than use as a slur. I would suggest including this text : "Many women have publically decried the use of the term "cisgender", claiming it erases the biological reality of sex. They claim it is belittling of biological women by reframing them as merely an alternative 'type' of woman that are unlike trans-women, rather than simply existing as women without reference to males. Some notable examples of this are Kellie-Jay Keen (formerly known as Posie Parker), Julia Hartley-Brewer of talkRADIO, and feminist vlogger Peachyoghurt Genderfree." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowe4333 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Slowe4333, we need WP:Reliable sources in the sense that Wikipedia defines that term to include this viewpoint, and YouTube videos don't meet that standard. Such a statement would of course have WP:In-text attribution. Its own heading would probably be WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Youtube videos most certainly CAN meet the criteria of "reliable source". "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." @Crossroads User Sche gave some excellent sources already, so why is this section still not added??!!? I'm beginning to feel like there is some bias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowe4333 (talk • contribs)

Most YouTubers don't meet Wikipedia's strict criteria of what a "reputable party" is, however. Using one of -sche's sources (of course we have to include the rebuttal portion from the same source(s)) is a good idea. We're all busy at many different articles, but perhaps you have a suggestion for specific text to add. If not I may circle back around and do it later. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Do people actually identify with one gender? I d rather say that a person is identified by society as one of the 2 avaible genders.I certainly don t understand the mere existence of this label. It s like saying submission of oneself to social stereotypes.crazy Delphine bournique (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What? There are certainly more than two avaible gender identities in the 21st century (not that this is entirely novel, either) - but I'm not sure that is at all related to "cisgender", which has a clear (and easily described) meaning that has nothing at all to do with stereotypes. How odd. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know the word Cisgender existed (until now), let alone the article about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacklyn.Ang, Cpktruong, Emilyplasencia, Maludino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Italics

1) Should this article's title be unitalicized? It's not an obviously foreign word, unlike for example zissexuell, so I don't think it should be italicized. It also doesn't appear to be a Latin word. Assuming that Romans combined cis and gender into a word, wouldn't it be cisgenus? The word "gender" appears to originate from the Old French word gendre. 2) Should terms such as cissexism, cisnormativity, transgender, cissexual assumption, heteronormativity, etc. be unitalicized? I don't think these need emphasis, so I'm leaning towards not using italics. Looking forward to your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It has to do with MOS:WAW combined with WP:ITALICTITLE. The article is about the word "cisgender", so that's what it goes with. Other articles about words, like womxn, do the same thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Use of word as a slur (March 2022)

Cisgendered is sometimes used as synonym for "transphobe" and "transdenier", as an insult against the people who don't automatically affirm those who call themselves transgender people. 2600:6C44:447F:A7A2:681E:FAC5:E5EC:908 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Do you know of any reliable sources which consider cisgender a slur? Per Due weight and No original research, we can only include it here if it represents a sufficiently prominent viewpoint.

It’s possible to use descriptors like “straight”, “white”, “cis”, and “male” to pejoratively describe a non-minority who is ignorant or clueless about the experiences of that minority, and it’s possible for non-trans/heterosexual/caucasian males to take offense at this (e.g. “i’m not cis, i’m normal!”), but the words by themselves are accurate and neutral descriptors, not slurs in the traditional sense. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 22:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sometimes" is MOS:WEASEL. This whole "this word is a slur because I heard someone use the wrong tone of voice while saying it" thing is getting ridiculous. Find a source to support your premise or let it go. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from a WP:RS about a WP:NOTABLE person who considers the term to be slur: William Shatner says being called a ‘straight white cis man’ is a way of ‘harassing and debasing’ him Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right! Let's just ignore its use for decades in academia and medicine and instead add that Shatner quote to the long list of people in this article that got pissy because someone dared call them cis. Wikifan21century (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of a way to cover Shatner's comments in a way that would not make him sound stupid and I don't think it is fair to pick on one specific old guy for losing touch with the situation and falling for a far-right talking point that is being pushed heavily, and in bad faith, by other people and then venting on Twitter. (It's Twitter!) As far as I know, he hasn't continued to bang on about this, at least not to the point of it getting sustained coverage, so let's not make him the poster boy for other people's nonsense unless he actually chooses that path for himself. If we have to cover this talking point at all then we need to pin it on the people it actually comes from and the people who have bought into it in a more serious way, not some poor guy who tripped over it and bumped his head one time.

Anyway, I can't see anything actionable here. The OP clearly does not understand the alleged issue and it is not even clear what they are asking us to do. We already cover this issue in the article and we cite Boyne's opinions as an example of a notable person holding these views. Boyne has fully drunk the Kool Aid on this issue and that makes him a much better example than Shatner. I think this is sufficient. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sameness: meaning and accuracy

In the article, "cisgender" "describes a person whose gender identity and sex assigned at birth are the same." Merriam Webster is referenced. At that source we see "of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth." It doesn't mention sameness per se. (It also doesn't mention gender.) I made some changes to correct this then felt I'd overly complicated the matter, made some other changes to simplify it and add a supporting citation but during that time my edits were reverted. I think it's better this conversation happen here first, so I'll thank the person who reverted it. I raise this because of at least three currently used Anglo-European colonialist definitions (and paradigms) of sex, gender, and/or gender identity, only the most conservative makes a case that they are "the same". Trans/queer ideology, and feminist theory, by and large, do not. We are left with the somewhat bitter irony that the definition chosen is philosophically at odds with the meanings trans people express when differentiating cis and trans people. My changes were to replace "... at birth are the same" to ... at birth are socially normative, or in correspondence, or in sync. I welcome discussion on how to change the definition so it is 'in sync' (wink wink) with the reality it is describing, and perhaps find alternative references.--PaulThePony (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that “are the same” arguably glosses over the gender-sex distinction. Based on the current dictionary definition being cited, I’ve changed it to read “describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth. If there are relevant sources that define the “correspondence” using more specific language, find them first before proposing major changes. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Cisgender sexuality" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cisgender sexuality and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 15#Cisgender sexuality until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 08:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

Change "Use of the term cisgender has at times been controversial." to "Use of the term cisgender is controversial." Jfoud (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I've undone this. What does the citation say? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, was just looking at this and the specific sentence here has no citation. It should be removed or supplied an actual citation.

This sentence seems unnecessary and argumentative considering that the preceding sentence is "The term cisgender was coined in 1994 and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender" and there is an entire section called "Critiques". We have sufficient illustration in this article of back and forth on this topic without calling it "controversial" in the lead graf which paints a specific picture that the article and sources do not consistently support.

Also, I'm not sure there is a way of supporting this use. This use of "controversial" is not supported by example in the language in other articles on the Wikipedia:List of controversial issues (which this page, I note, is not on). I say we should remove this sentence entirely. @RealAspects @UtherSRG. Phifty (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acarlos19 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bareli29.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Cisgender origin

It amazes me that after all these years Wikipedia still fails to acknowledge the most widely accepted and documented attribution of the origin of the term cisgender to the person who intentionally and erroneously coined this neologism, Dana Defosse, in 1994. It only recently added an indirect reference to Defosse by citing one of the countless authorities recognizing their contribution that is now nearly common parlance universal and globally appears ubiquitously in nearly every media of communication. 151.197.2.64 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Source? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The source currently cited for the 1994 origin does mention that name, and some other interesting details that may be worth adding. It also comments on what past versions of the Wikipedia article claimed. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

'Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of is an insufficient definition as nothing is said about the 'gender'component of the word. As it stands it could be referring to this side of anything. This is sloppy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1560:99A2:3FA6:91EA:2CE4:CE10 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We have a whole article about gender which covers its etymology and usage. We don't need to rehash that all here. It is linked and anybody who wants to know more only has to click on the link to find what they want. DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification sentence needed in "history" section on Sigusch

I cannot currently edit this myself but the paragraph on the word’s history is missing a clarification that is present on Sigursch’s own Wikipedia page, that while he claims to have invented the neologism, the usage predates him. As it is, the paragraph could lead (and anecdotally has lead in some online spaces) to some incorrectly assuming the term originated with him. I suggest the inclusion of this sentence from Sigursch’s Wikipedia page be inserted at the end of the paragraph: “However, using a cis/trans dichotomy as transgender patois predates Sigusch back to 1914 with Ernst Burchard in Lexikon des gesamten Sexuallebens.” As a means of clarifying this. 14.2.80.237 (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It is unreferenced in Volkmar Sigusch and the claim does not appear in Ernst Burchard at all. I'd support adding it to all three articles if we can find a good reference for it. I think we do have some semi-plausible candidates for good references but I'm not sure that we are quite there yet:

• This and this and this all cite Burchard but not the Lexikon specifically
• This does mention the Lexikon but I think it is just a student thesis.

Do we think this is good enough? If not, can anybody find anything better? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Actual origin of cisgender

Cisgender was actually coined by Volkmar Sigusch in his 1991 publication "Die Transsexuellen und unser nosomorpher Blick" ("Transsexuals and our nosomorphic view"). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkmar_Sigusch BloodSkullzRock (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That article says the attribution is debated. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

The term Cisgender was coined by Volmkmar in 1991, it was originally cissexual, as we know it now it is cisgender.

Sigusch 1991 4:318). In his view, the eleventh cardinal symptom for instance mirrored at least as much his situation and defence as the patients' situation and defence at the time (ibid: 319). Second, he problematised cissexuality and related cissexualism and transsexualism to each other (ibid: 329-335). He argued that masculinity and femininity required of every person to limit him- or herself either to the one or to the other side. He questioned the seemingly self-evident link between a male person's gender identity as a man and a female person's identity as a woman (ibid: 333). Since it is impossible to escape compulsory gendering, transsexualism and cissexualism necessarily are relational categories

An excerpt from the Book - Negotiating the Borders of the Gender Regime 51.191.19.9 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See the above post. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigusch

A 1991 publication by Volkmar Sigusch, titled Transsexuals and our Nosomorphic View, is credited as the first published instance of the term “cisgender” as an antonym to transgender. 2001:56A:FDA3:A800:19DC:4195:1504:F750 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: "Transsexuals and our nosomorphic view" is currently mentioned in the article § History, as having used the term cissexual, not cisgender. LightNightLights ^(talk) 13:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KingKibba, KayeAKelley (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AnesaM, Yejuice.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)