Talk:Cisnormativity

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Cisnormativity has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 18, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Western gender binary

What is a "western" gender binary? Is it different to the east? Can we drop the word "Western"? 67.83.108.122 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done; it makes more sense without it and it isn't the place for commentary on where a gender binary does or does not apply - though I'll note that the gender binary is most certainly not restricted to the West. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I had it like that is quite simply that that's what the source says. I'm not that attached to that nuance, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cisnormativity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FenrisAureus (talk · contribs) 11:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Last updated: 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC) by Maddy from Celeste

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

Sources spot checked for reliability and NOR:

Ref #	pass/fail
4	✓ Pass
15	✓ Pass
16	✓ Pass
23	✓ Pass
28	✓ Pass

— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

Earwig score 2% similarity. [1] Plagarism highly unlikely. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall: Looks good to me. Pass.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Full body scanners

It might be worth adding something to the article in the consequences section about those TSA Full body Scanners. See: Full body scanner#Treatment of transgender people and the bibliography of this video for sources on the topic.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]