Jump to content

Talk:Cisgender/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Possible Interpretation as a Slur

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

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

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

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

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

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

The slur word was created by the transsexual community for use within the transsexual community as a form of short hand. The origin was to create an "other" to mock. Self labeling is welcome but to apply this label to others is slurring and slandering.( "to the side of" woman/man ) does not help lessen gender oppression it creates new gender confusion and does a disservice to the 20+ DNA defined genders by implying a binary. The term cis has no added value and is derogatory. Using the term is awkward and does not allow inclusion of intersexed or non-binary individuals into the discussion. The slur created from within the LGBT community is the equivalent of saying cunt or prick and has no place in polite language to describe another person. Chosenprecepts (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a slur. Some people got mad and said angry things. That does not make it a slur.
It is not a dichotomy any more than polytheism and monotheism are dichotomous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7D00:148:213:E8FF:FE35:DF9D (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It can (and is) interpreted by many as a slur, because it forces an over-simplified identity onto others and negates their class experiences as one of privilege (because they are not trans and because trans people overwhelmingly face abuse by men for rejecting masculinity and devaluing themselves to femininity). Since the majority of trans people are male (who transition to being trans women), the majority of "cis" people to whom the masses regularly refer are females who are not trans. Females undergo their own class struggles of abuse, not for rejecting masculinity and being women, but for any attempts at escaping femininity. The term "cis" also assumes that a "matching" between mind and body is "from the brain", or that gender and sex can actually "match", which naturalizes the class struggles of those who did not choose their gender but only identify with it because it was all that was available to them. This naturalizes the abuse women face because of their sexual anatomy. If stereotypes of womanhood, which women for centuries have been fighting against, "matches" sexual anatomy, what does that say about the future of girls and women who were born female? It essentially means that women's anatomy "matches" their oppression, and the only way to fight against it is to abandon womanhood and perhaps become trans men (because the female person's sense of independence and love for masculinized things like science don't "match" their vaginas, so they aren't "cis"). To call someone cis is to tell someone that their gender matches their bodies, and most females did not adopt their gender by being presented with a platter of choices. It was taught and enforced through years of socialization and oppression. To tell someone that their experiences match their body is to tell everyone who shares that sex that they are essentially doomed unless they transition away from femininity or womanhood. Many neuroscientists and feminists have argued that male and female brains do not have any meaningful difference, and the differences we have are due to experiences (they get strengthened like a muscle with use). One cannot deny that we are shaped by our experiences, and your experiences are largely dependent on whether the hospital pronounces, "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!". Once that is pronounced, society, friends, and family mould you into the socially acceptable form according to your biology and what characteristics they feel matches that. It's important to note that contemporary global cultures as well as historic cultures all treated femininity and masculinity differently, so there is nothing in terms of behaviour or interests that inherently "matches" biology--only what our patriarchal, white western culture has deemed appropriate for the sexes. Some people reject the gendered expectations they were assigned and would like to see gender abolished so that any person of any sex can behave how they like without being told it matches or mismatches their bodies (i.e. females who remain acknowledge their female status but who reject the gender stereotypes placed and enforced on them), and others reject it by transforming their sense of gender to a different gender which is more socially acceptable in "matching" (i.e. males who identify as women and females and who identify their male biology as another variant of female biology). The latter is saying that in order to like feminine things and in order to justify having a penis while liking to paint nails, the penis must be female because their "brain sex" is female. At the crux of all of this is that by adopting a gender-sex "matching" ideology, the stereotypes put onto females are good and normal and if you don't like it, transition away. To name an experience shared by others of your sex but which does not concern those that identify as your sex (such as periods, pregnancy, etc.) is "cissexist" (which silences females, including trans men, from talking about shared biological experiences). So, in summary, cis can absolutely be seen as a slur. It negates centuries of work by feminists to own their bodies and their identities and to not be told that their state of affairs "matches" their biological bodies. The trans-cis dichotomy naturalizes genders to sex and that is something that is very offensive to many people, especially women who have female bodies and have had a lifetime of experiences because they have female bodies and were forced to adopt a patriarchal idea of what female bodies should do, act like, and look like. I have anecdotally seen it used several times preceding the word "scum" (i.e. "cis scum"). --Flurryofcrispycoffee (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You argue that "cis" can be a slur because
  • it forces an over-simplified identity onto others and negates their class experiences as one of privilege
  • It negates centuries of work by feminists to own their bodies and their identities and to not be told that their state of affairs "matches" their biological bodies.
  • To tell someone that their experiences match their body is to tell everyone who shares that sex that they are essentially doomed unless they transition away from femininity or womanhood.
Counterpoint: No, "cis" does not do any of those things. Your entire argument seems wholly without merit except your final sentence, but you already recognize that an isolated use or two of "cis scum" is not noteworthy. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have only ever seen it academically in a used neutral setting. Outside of academia I have only ever seen it used as a pejorative. "That is awfully fair to a cis male of you." Just because the word has a neutral meaning does not mean it is used neutrally. Fag is not inherently negative it can be used to to mean wood or cigarettes but to not include its overwhelming use as a pejorative would be an over site. Cis may not itself be a derogatory but it is almost exclusively used as a label for a group that did not pick it for themselves or identify with its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.100.162 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My personal view is that it is not a slur; it is simply a technical term or category. However, it should be noted that some people, for whatever reasons such as those highlighted above, do think it is a slur and I do not think it is encyclopedic to ignore or dismiss this belief based on who has the most 'privilege'. Therefore, it should be noted down that its use is controversial amongst certain people. Whether it is a slur or not I do not think it is for us to decide. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 22:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
"Cis" is no more a slur than "straight" or "hetero" is a slur, or "male", "white", "rich", "thin", "smart", "neurotypical", "able-bodied", "Christian", "Anglophone", "educated", "middle-class", "vanilla (not kinky)", "monoamorous (not polyamorous)", "sexual (not asexual)", "of binary gender (not genderqueer)", "dyadic (not intersex)", etc. Of course, if you say bigoted things against a minority and face backlash from that minority where they use a term like this (especially an unfamiliar term, as in this case), and react angrily and mockingly, it can feel like a slur ... which at worst just gives you a tiny taste of what being at the receiving end of bigotry and oppression feels like. Given that trans people (of all kinds) are still regularly murdered just for being trans all over the world (let me quote from Transphobia#Harrassment and violence: "When transgender people are murdered, they are often shot or stabbed repeatedly, riddled with bullets or bludgeoned beyond recognition"), rhetorical inversions such as "die cis scum" (of the much more common sentiment "die trans scum", it is to be noted) are understandable, and when complaints about "hate speech" against cis people are greeted with ridicule by trans people and their allies, using phrases such as "check your privilege" and "cis tears", the complainers should ponder how many cis people are ever insulted, harrassed, murdered and disfigured for being cis. Isn't it ironic how privileged people tell minorities to be "more thick-skinned" and less "easily offended", and then go on to react this thin-skinnedly to the tiniest criticism? Who's the coddled one here?
That said, complaints about women and minorities "oppressing" men and non-minorities often seem to be a conscious, disingenuous way to fight social justice activism and its successes, because privileged people don't like losing privileges such as treating less privileged people like crap and getting away with it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think, pretty clearly, the amount of controversy surrounding the word as a slur at least warrants a noting on the page. Fair points have been made on both sides of the argument. I have two primary concerns. First, "trans" is a more specific identifier used against "cis". This can easily be interpreted as a label announcing exclusion from a specific group, rather than membership of one. Second, it is a term widely used within the trans community to describe those without, this inherently means that it is a label applied to a broad group that did not choose to use it as an identifier. Both of these issues could lead to an insulting interpretation of the label.BillyPilgrumps (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cisgender is not currently a slur, it is a pejorative. A slur is meant to imply a falsehood about someone, there are societal connotations attached to slurs. A pejorative is a word that expresses disapproval. Cisgender is often used to disapprove of people, often in arguments "you are cisgendered, you would not understand." or on reddit "hashtag diecisscum".Factchecker170 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Most sources do not treat it as a pejorative. And your example of you are cisgendered, you would not understand is not an example of its use as a pejorative. Saying "You are American, you wouldn't understand" doesn't mean you're using "American" in a pejorative way. It's just a descriptive label. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Your example is using "American" in a pejorative way. You are making, potentially false, negative assumptions about a person and transmitting those assumptions verbally. The difference though between American and cisgender is that outside of academic paper cisgender is primarily used as a pejorative, and more importantly it is seen negatively by those it is identifying. Cisgender is like the word Redskin, people need to stop supporting hurtful talk. Factchecker170 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The burden is on you to demonstrate that the word is primarily considered pejorative by reliable sources. Please also see WP:NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The burden is not on me. I have held off on making further corrections so that I hold this conversation, but the first reference the one that is being used to define cisgender as a descriptor instead of a pejorative, does not define cisgender. As such you have no basis in changing pejorative into descriptor. But how about a compromise. Instead of pejorative which you believe is unwarranted, or descriptor which I believe is obfuscating, we use the word label which is more or less a neutral term.Factchecker170 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the word "label," though I don't see it as any more neutral than the word "descriptor" really. Funcrunch (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
A label can either be negative or positive, depending upon the user and upon the recipient. This makes it neutral. In contrast descriptors are generally positive in nature, and to differentiate are clarified with the adjective negative IE negative descriptor. This makes it potentially biased as it ignores the portion of the population that does not want to be labeled as cisgender, or who perceive cisgender to have negative connotations/ is a pejorative/slur/derogatory/etc.Factchecker170 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
A descriptor can be positive or negative too (e.g., my father is fat)... but if label makes you happier I'm not gonna fight it. Again, though, cisgender is only considered non-neutral to a small group of people and its use as a descriptor/label/adjective in articles does not imply negative meaning. It's equivalent to "straight" or "heterosexual". I can see an argument for avoiding its use on BLPs though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Having read your comment above Funcrunch's ... the burden is indeed on you. The article's content does not support defining the term primarily as "pejorative". That it is interpreted that way by some is not its defining characteristic. The etymology section makes that clear. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous Citation

Reference 1 does not agree with the sentence "Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a label for those whose experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth." The reference is used correctly later in the paper when it says "Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define cisgender as a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity"." If someone would care to either rewrite the opening sentence to make it more accurate to the source, or add a different citation that agrees with the wording chosen."

the full passage from the source:
Notes 1. Cis is the Latin prefix for "on the same side." It compliments trans, the prefix for "across or "over." "Cisgender" replaces the terms "nontransgender" or "bio man/bio woman" to refer to individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity."

If no one cares to change it, then later this week I will simply mark the sentence citation needed.Factchecker170 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how they don't match? I'm not seeing the discrepancy here... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The authors state three things 1. gender assigned at birth, 2.their bodies, 3.their personal identity
this article states two things 1. sex assigned at birth __________________ 2.their personal identity
This causes two inconsistencies, sex vs gender, and no mention of their bodies. These inconsistencies change the meaning of what the authors are saying.Factchecker170 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Then let's stick the OED (ref #27) definition up there. Or just remove the ref since WP:LEAD says we don't need them in the lead. Since the sex assignment at birth process relies on reading bodies and external genitalia, I don't think its inconsistent with the source given. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Merriam Webster

Merriam Webster announced it added cisgender to its dictionary. Added a citation already, but wanted to provide other links of people want to add more:

Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

About time. I am so sick of seeing and reverting vandalism on this and the genderqueer pages by people saying they are "made-up" words (i.e. neologisms). Not that this will stop them, unfortunately... Funcrunch (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
All of the genderqueer words are neologisms, which does not necessarily equate to "made-up" words. Cisgender is called a neologism in a number of relatively recent, reliable sources. This doesn't make it bad. But that, and the objection some people (including some members of the LGBT community) have to using it, does mean that we should not be using it any and everywhere on Wikipedia. There are places where it is best used, and places where it isn't. As you know, being careful with neologisms on Wikipedia is per WP:Neo and MOS:Neo, and I've debated the use of cisgender via an RfC before: Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 10#Cisgender is mainstream and germane. Most of the unconstructive edits to the Cisgender article are not about the word being made-up anyway; it's about people being ignorant and so on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that all words are "made-up" at some point. Neologism refers to the recent coinage of the term and the article specifies it was coined in the 1990s. This is pretty recent. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that the definition makes no reference to the term being pejorative or a slur. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The image on the article

The trans pride flag should not be on an article explaining the term "cisgender" Suttonbuttonxx (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The image is part of the template {{transgender sidebar}}. Discussion of the term is relevant to transgender issues as it's the opposite of the term "transgender". clpo13(talk) 23:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
And how exactly it being the opposite makes this a transgender related topic and not the other way around? Why not then put on the Heterosexuality article the template {{LGBT sidebar}}? Sgv 6618 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed unsourced content

I've removed most of this addition , as it contains few references and contains what looks like a large amount original research. Someone may be interested in trying to properly source and rewrite the parts about the various researchers mentioned there. Diego (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pushback/rejection against term

Could something in the article be included about the push-back or rejection of the term by heterosexual people who are offended by what they consider a SJW definition? My inquiry into this has shown that the vast majority of heterosexuals are offended by the term and prefer to be called 'heterosexual', 'straight'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:2C39:D0B1:1C06:2FA8 (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This topic is about gender identity, not sexual orientation. Both cisgender and transgender people can be heterosexual or straight. I think you mean that some non-transgender people are offended by the term "cisgender". You'll need some evidence for the claim that they constitute the "vast majority" though. Funcrunch (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

i have only encountered this term as an derogatory term used by trans community sites when talking about non trans people. also seen it used by gay community people using it against heterosexuals in the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.11.248.200 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I too have mostly encountered it as a slur, and used by trans- or allied people. But that's unrepresentative. More than anything, it's an obscure word (rather than a pejorative one) and is almost only ever used within the trans- community. As such, it is rarely used in a positive context as self identification by cis- people (who just aren't using it at all).
I have no problem with describing it as either a slur (which would need sourcing) or being seen as a slur (which has already been sourced). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
As you say, your experience is not representative for Wikipedia purposes, and any statements such as cis people "just aren't using it at all" would also need to be sourced for use in an article. For what it's worth, the term was added to the Oxford English Dictionary two years ago. Funcrunch (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The source states that " It's clear that some gay men and lesbians see "cisgender" as a slur, a way of labelling them as elitists or conformists after all (i.e., as not "queer" enough)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.H.110 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@D.H.110: Thank you for participating on the talk page. Your edit said "It has been used as a slur by members of the LGBT community against non-trans people." That is not at all the same thing as what was said in the source. And replacing the sentence with virtually the same wording ("It has been used as a slur by some members of the LGBT community against non-trans people"), minus the source and section header, was not "reworded" as your edit summary misleadingly said; it was simply restating your original edit. Funcrunch (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

D.H.110 and Andy Dingley, see Talk:Cisgender/Archive 3#Where is a simple definition?. I pointed to that source and noted that I would be adding some material from it. I simply have not gotten around to adding material on this yet. But, yes, some of what that source mentions should be in the article. A number of LGBT people do not embrace the term, just like a number of intersex people don't either. And the article already mentions objection from intersex people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion in the archive, thanks for linking it Flyer22 Reborn and sorry I missed it. As to the slur discussion here, I agree with Flyer that if some people see it that way and the sources report on it, the article should say so someplace, with due attention to weight.
First of all, my feeling about "cisgender" as slur is that the objections to it are not really primarily an attack on a word being viewed as a slur, but rather a displaced attack based on hurt feelings or outrage at being viewed as a member of an oppressive majority. For one thing, historically, slurs in English have usually been short, pithy, words with germanic roots; they are rarely polysyllabic Latinate or Greek compounds of the type found in scholarly journals.
Secondly, we haven't mentioned the issue of intersectionality yet, and imho that is a large subtext here that should be considered. This happens over and over, when a oppressed minority in one context, achieves some level of success, acceptance, or visibility in the larger society, and then becomes bemused, confused, outraged, or belligerent where they feel attacked by another group as being part of, or unjustly lumped in with, the oppressive majority in another context.
I guess the common thread and tl;dr version here is the crie de coeur, "I've been oppressed all my life, don't you dare call me an oppressor, mofo!"
We see this again and again. First generation Caucasian immigrants taken to task for centuries of attacks against First Nations or Native Americans. Holocaust survivors seen as exploitative shopkeepers in African-American neighborhoods of New York. Women finding their voice and building second wave feminism and then facing this issue again and again: first, straight women excluding lesbians from the movement, and then again, trying to deal with women of color some of whom see abortion as black genocide, and then again with respect to classism in dealing with the concerns of domestic workers, stay-at-home moms, and even sex workers who were not part of the demographic of middle- and upper-class white, professional women who started the second wave. We saw it again, with gays and lesbians with a precarious beachhead on the shoreline of societal legitimacy being criticized for excluding transgender issues from proposed antidiscrimination legislation for fear it would hurt their image and lower the chances of passage.
And now with that last rift between LGB and T more or less healed, new battle lines perhaps forming over words of identity that appear to lump gays back with the oppressors again. Not only that, but this time, gays and straights are all lumped together into one, big, oppressive group. "Niener, niener, you straights and gays are all alike!" No wonder people's feelings are ruffled.
As a Gedankenexperiment and to put things in perspective, one might consider what some future might bring, once transfolk have achieved the same sort of level of acceptance in society as gays have now, which is to say not 100% but still something, and then how one day some other group may point to trans people, to their horror, as being part of the oppressive majority in another context. Will it be intersex people, perhaps, who point out one day how trans men and women are like everyone else because they are "cismorphic" having been born with unambiguous anatomical sexual characteristics? And how whether they chose to stay that way or chose to change to the "opposite" form through SRS, they at least started out shaped like everybody else, and didn't suffer a situation where even a doctor attending their birth wasn't able to assign a sex to them because they were "transmorphic"? Something no transgender person (or anyone else) could ever understand, because they didn't suffer the lifelong consequences? I'm not being at all snide, here, there's no reason to think this couldn't (or shouldn't) happen. The point is, that humans react in a human way, and nobody wants to be the oppressor. So fight against oppression, but have an ounce of understanding for what they might be going through, especially so if they have experience as a minority in a different context.
Anyway, when considering whether to add something about "cisgender as slur" to the article and how to word it, I just wanted to put in my two cents to consider the intersectionality issue, the historical perspective, and the nature of slurs. I'm not arguing that intersectionality needs to be specifically mentioned in the article (unless the reliable sources do) just that awareness of the issue can help inform how best to improve the article.
P.S. I've taken the liberty of changing the section header to sentence case so it doesn't SHOUT anymore; if there's any objection, please just set it back.
Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The words for non-intersex that you are looking for, User:Mathglot, already exist: they are are dyadic, or endosex. When one or the other becomes notable enough, and verifiable, I'm sure it will be added to Wikipedia. Trankuility (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd heard of ipsogender (meaning something else) but not those two; they led me to this glossary which is helpful, but I can't vouch for its reliability. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Though I don't disagree with anything in particular you've said, we should avoid getting into lengthy discussions on the topic here that aren't directly related to improving the article. (This applies to all talk pages, per WP:NOTFORUM.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by 182.239.190.220

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objections to the term

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Need for the term

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

1994 USENET posting

This term didn't exist prior to a 1994 USENET posting. There should be some mention of that in the history of its use as pertaining to the topic of sexuality in humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.210 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source for that? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The user is correct that the earliest recorded usage in English of the related term cisgendered (according to the OED) was in a posting to the alt.transgendered Usenet newsgroup in 1994: [1] (and if you have access to the OED, the entry for cisgendered is here: [2]). The word cisgender itself isn't recorded by the OED until a Usenet posting in 1997: [3] —Deliriousgreen (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Objections to the objections

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

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

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

WP:NOTAFORUM Trankuility (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
strongly agree. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem With Terminology

Just as people with different Gender Identities have issues being mislabeled, I have issue with being called Cisgendered. It's not even a real word.

The meaning, "People whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth." I have a problem with the word 'assigned', as most people (99.9%) are born with a penis or vagina, there is nothing to 'assign'. For such a small percentage that have deformities, such as multiple sex organs, that is a rough decisions for parents and one that I would hope no one has to make, as deciding which way to go could ultimately effect the child for their entire life into adulthood and beyond. But for the vast majority of us, no 'assignment' is required. It's what we were born with.

It seems perfectly OK for people of different Gender Identities to label regular people with this Cisgender term. I do not like it. And what's worse is this name is made up. Even spell check underlines it, as it's not in it's digital dictionary of words.

They want respect, fine, then show some back and stop using this term. It's insulting and the fact Wikipedia is defining this word is also insulting, as it's nothing more than a slang term, and shouldn't have a Wikipedia page.

I can understand Gender Identity issues and I'm sympathetic, but the volume and trying to force all these new terms and Identities on people isn't exactly fair. Nor is it fair to label people with your own terms, and it's hypocritical to do so. You don't like labels, neither do I and a number of other people I know.

I'll put it in another way, you don't want anyone telling you what gender you are, so don't tell me what I am. You do not hold that power over me, as you do not want others to hold that power over you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FB43:2500:F01C:34F3:25BD:C08E (talk • contribs)

"I do not like it" is not an argument that holds much weight on Wikipedia. Why don't you start by explaining what you'd like to see happen with this article? Do you want it deleted entirely? Or what? --ChiveFungi (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Off topic

People are clearly 'free' to use what terminology they like to describe themselves. BUT perhaps they are not 'free' to label other people as being "cis" just because these other people appear not to have any gender identity issues? Personally, I object to ANYBODY assuming that I have a gender identity at all. I identify as a human being, who has a cultural heritage dominated by rural Scottish Highland socio-economic realities. It seems to me self-evident that nobody, and no group or organisation, has any moral or legal right to label any human being. People who wish to label themselves, do not need to label other people in the process. Do they? If I have to have a label, I would choose the label "murderer" as I have personally murdered thousands of Salmo Salar, as a necessary consequence of accepting employment at a Salmon Fishing station in Ross-shire (as a young man, obviously). 82.32.112.174 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A contribution discussing the validity of this term, if used as a label to be applied to other people

I have already posted the content below to the page of a wiki-person who deleted my more concise contribution. It seems to me that some people believe that they have authority to silence the genuine perspective of other people. In the same way, some people believe that they have (perhaps) 'earned' the right to label other people. Put simply, I disagree. Censorship and arbitrary labelling are equally egregious manifestations of wiki-deprecated behaviour. This article needs to be clearer about the contexts in which the terms <cis> or <cis-gender> can be 'legitimately' used. I like to inject humour into my posts, but if anyone objects to the last sentence, feel free to delete that sentence!

<Italic text So you have the authority to decide that my comment on the talk pages did not add anything to the topic of the article - that is very interesting. Perhaps it begs the question, "what is the topic of the article?". Where an article is identified as being 'about' an interesting term, which is yet contended as to its application, it seems to me that the article must be BOTH about how the term is commonly used, and about how the term is commonly contended. The term, I would argue, is probably useful when applied by a person to themselves, or when applied in an academic context, where its use is clearly demarcated as NOT personal. If a person chose to describe me as 'cis-gender', I would describe such use as objectionable. I would also contend that this would not merely be a matter of opinion. No one has any right to label my gender identity directly, nor even indirectly. No one can construct any rational argument that would give them the right to label my gender identity, nor any right to allocate me to some group whose gender identity they feel entitled to label. When people choose to discuss gender identity, they ought to be clear in their mind about what exactly they are discussing, and my edit was designed to clarify that point. If you want to exert authoritarian power, why don't you just get a dog? Woof, woof Italic text> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.112.174 (talk • contribs)

So as I understand it, you object to all labels applied to anybody unless they approve that label? So this article should say something along the lines of "Some cis people object to being called cis. Don't call them cis. They don't like it." Is that the sort of thing you're looking for? And then we can edit murder to say "Some murderers object to being called murderers. Don't call them murderers." Is that the change you'd like to see made? --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Off topic
Gender studies are very interesting, even to old folk like me. I have just looked at my birth certificate - it says that my father's name was Alexander. This is wrong, my fathers name was actually Alasdair - so birth certificates can be wrong. But the significance of a name, I guess, is less than the significance of the <M.> in the column marked "Sex." Did the registrar check that this entry was 'accurate'? I imagine he didn't. 82.32.112.174 (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You are a very interesting person, obviously. You seem to start by assuming that everybody must have a gender identity label, but I do not think that you can really prove that in any satisfactory way. Everybody, let's say, can be said to have a self-concept; even if they are not explicitly aware, themselves, that they have a self-concept. Sex identity, and gender identity; these are both likely to be elements of a person's self-concept. Depending on circumstances, gender identity might be a very significant part of a person's self-concept, in the same way as having the label 'autistic' might be a significant part of a person's self-concept. BUT equally, having the label 'autistic' might NOT be significant to a person themselves, and identifying with a binary gender identity might well be something that a person explicitly rejects, or they might merely accept a binary identity as a habit, or for their convenience, and the convenience of others. Gender stereotypes can be very oppressive, but I guess it is possible to believe that for some people gender stereotypes are helpful. You say, in your illustration: "some CIS people object to being called CIS". I say that you have only assumed that CIS is a realistic label to attach to people, when it is not your place to make this assumption, in a moral universe. Clearly, if you mean no harm by labelling others, then their objections need not worry you unduly. BUT, if labelling others is an integral part of establishing your own self-concept, then a moral philosopher might take issue with you. Maybe you are just challenging what you see as a weak argument; maybe. If that is what you aim to do, you need to make a better job of it, as there is nothing in what I said to suggest that I think a person must have the right to approve every label that might be applied to them. However, it seems to me, at a simplistic level perhaps, that if you wish to show respect to an individual, you do not attach any sort of gender identity label to them, unless you have some reason to believe that they would have no objection to your doing that. It is simple really, you may label someone who has been convicted of a murder as 'a convicted murderer', but you should not (morally speaking) label them as cis, at a personal level. Thankyou, in advance, for not deleting this considered contribution to the wikipedia article exploring <cis gender> 82.32.112.174 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

I would like to change the second sentence in the introduction. 'Cisgender may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex".' would be better phrased as 'Cisgender is also sometimes defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex".'

My reason is that I believe the use of the word 'appropriate' implies that it is inappropriate for a person to be transgender or non-binary. This is a damaging sentiment, and my edition would be more inclusive. It would move us away from considering it 'appropriate' to be cisgender.

Thank you Joelvontreifeldt (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Already done  Spintendo      10:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"It is the opposite of the term transgender."

Is this accurate? Opposite?? The reference given is not a dictionary. I would prefer a scholar-based dictionary for word definitions. Misty MH (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"nontrans"

It should also state also known as nontrans in bold at the beginning, most people that are "cis" prefer nontrans anyways!2602:306:C4B4:F390:A113:88A7:8C8C:7F98 (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Source ? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"Non-trans" is discussed in the "Critiques" section. As for the lead, we need to look over solid sources on that and assess the WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2018

The statement: Julia Serano has defined cissexual as "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned", while cisgender is a slightly narrower term for those who do not identify as transgender (a larger cultural category than the more clinical transsexual).

To: Julia Serano, a transgender women, has defined cissexual as "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned", while cisgender is a slightly narrower term for those who do not identify as transgender (a larger cultural category than the more clinical transsexual).

Reason: Credentials should be established before quoting a person. This is especially true since the term is the opposite of the minority. Iceberg000 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

How is being a transgender woman a credential? --Equivamp - talk 22:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
More to the point: where is there a guideline or policy that supports your implication about credentials being required for a quotation? The only ones I'm aware of reagarding quotations are NPOV, and verifiability through citation of reliable sources. I'd be inclined to reject this request, unless you can come up for a guideline-based rationale for including Julia Serano's gender identity before quoting her. Also, you didn't quote the passage 100% correctly: in the original, Julia Serano's name is wikilinked; and if someone was curious about her gender identity, they could just click the link and read the article about her. Mathglot (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done No consensus for edit. Fish+Karate 14:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Work needed due to strangely absent words

Hi

Some work is needed. I don't know how much, but one paragraph alone has two strangenesses

Critiques -> From feminism and gender studies; para 2.

"because it lumps people" is missing an expected "together".

It currently reads "with"

"with heteronormative class" should either be "with a heteronormative" or "with heteronormative classes"

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I've fixed the two specific phrases you highlighted. :) More wording tweaks are probably needed. -sche (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll give it a basic copyedit later todaym or tomorrow if I don't get time. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

References to Biology are necessary 173.79.108.38 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

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

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

Neologism

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cisgender/Archive_4&oldid=1074331656"