Talk:Cisgender

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)

• Here, click on this. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• I suppose the "several dictionaries" you checked for this term did not include Merriam-Webster... Funcrunch (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The need for the term is prejudicial. It is a pejorative invented in recent years with absolutely zero medical or scientific backing. It is a whole cloth liberal arts sociopolitical tactic to create terminology in order to be able to attack it. A straw man. Without any justification. Russell's Teapot. Prove it doesn't exist now. That's the standard. No standard getting it in. Only to get it out. Proof of an inherent bias. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2018 (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)

Gender is a psychological identity. Nobody is "assigned" a gender at birth. Nobody. Sex is observed. Intersex can be misidentified, but not gender, because gender doesn't have a look. Everyone want to have their cake and eat it too. If cisgender is a real term, and gender is psychological, then "assigned at birth" is a lie. Because all that happens at birth is an observation of apparent sex. In the case of intersex, what is observed and what they are biologically have neither to do with gender. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Trankuility (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

strongly agree. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151112200858/http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/how-we-ended-up-cisgender/ to http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/how-we-ended-up-cisgender/

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)

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)

No, these articles come up out of nowhere with no justification for existing in the first place, and then you use that same imaginary background as a defense for why it can't be taken down. Same argument made on the "assigned at birth" article. The fact that there is an "assigned at birth" article is itself ridiculous. It's a lie, nobody "assigns" anything at birth. But then you use this lie as defense to keep it up, as people can't cite enough sources to call it something else. Something invented whole cloth for sociopolitical reasons, of course there isn't a rich history to reference to. Not a reason to keep it, in fact a reason to delete it. Same with this lie. "cis" was tacked on just a few years ago from one zealous activist as a pejorative to average individuals who do not distinguish gender. It isn't an established medical term. You have nothing in hard science or medical texts backing up any research or establishment of the terminology. It came straight out of liberal arts university arguments. Not science. Not medicine. Not psychology. And because it is made up and brand new. You think that justifies its existence when questioned? The lack of supporting arguments? No. That proves this article is unsubstantiated. All of these are variations on Russell's Teapot. "I say it's real, show me citations that it isn't, if you can't it stays up as fact." By your standard I can just churn out imaginary concepts left and right and the burden would be on you to show older citations for something that doesn't exist. Which you couldn't Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2018 (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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916025255/http://interactyouth.org/post/97343969730/inter-act-has-been-working-with-mtvs-faking-it-on to http://interactyouth.org/post/97343969730/inter-act-has-been-working-with-mtvs-faking-it-on

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)