Talk:Cisgender/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Assigned at birth

this article repeatedly uses the phrase "sex marker they were assigned at birth". Not being snarky here, I may genuinely not understand what I am reading, but aren't "sex markers" assigned at conception? meaning, at the moment when either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome sperm wins the race to the egg? Now it is true that (even in the era of 4d ultrasounds) that you never know the baby's sex marker for certain until after birth, however, those markers are "assigned" at the moment of conception, right? I will give someone a chance to refute me here, but I think this should be edited.24.220.174.68 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Sex is not assigned at birth... Seriously, am I missing something here? When we say "sex" we are referring to the male/female binary choice. That is to say, a new baby is either an XX or an XY, with genitalia being the evidence of which it is. Right? And this is not "assigned" at "birth" it is ordained from the moment of conception. For real, I am not trying to mud the waters here, I don't understand how this is even under discussion, it seems a self-evident truth to me. Can someone please explain how I am wrong? 24.220.174.68 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

per this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#.C2.ADContent we have this: "be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something. be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. Footnotes and links to other pages may be used for further clarification."

Not only is factually wrong to say that "sex markers are assigned at birth" it is unclear and unnecessarily verbose. For example, rather than saying " where an individual's experience of their own gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth." this article should say " where an individual's experience of their own gender matches their sex". I am editing to reflect this. 24.220.174.68 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)|

My edits are being reverted with no explanation and no attempt to build consensus, in violation of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Do_not_revert_during_talk_page_discussions#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages. I am going to revert back to my edit, I am not trying to start an edit war, however user Flyer22 is violating wikipedia policy here. Flyer 22 if you are reading this can you at least explain why you disagree with my edits (and why you did not state your disagreement before simply deleting my edits)? 24.220.174.68 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sex [is] the biological distinction between male and female." and "The World Health Organization (WHO) similarly states that "'[s]ex' refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women". These characteristics can change via surgery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if we agree that sex can be changed via surgery, is it incorrect to state that a person's sex is determined at conception, rather than birth? Also, how does surgery change your X into anY or vice versa. 24.220.174.68 (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

IP, I responded here on my talk page. I was not violating policy. As for the rest... If you read (in whole or significantly in part) the Sex assignment, Gender and Sex and gender distinction articles, you may be able to get a better understanding of what is meant by "sex assignment," which is also sometimes called "gender assignment." It is true that, due to the chromosomal makeup, scientists generally do not look at sex (the biological state of being male or female) as something that can be changed, though there are biological aspects that can be changed via hormones and/or surgery (which NeilN touched on above), the sex and gender distinction topic is more complicated than what you are perceiving it to be. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not always. Please read this. It not always as simple as you assume and "at birth" is more accurate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now at the three revert point, with absolutely no attempt to build consensus. Disagree with me on my edits if you want, but you are not doing so within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. I'm not really an expert on this, but my understanding was that editors such as yourself own neither Wikipedia nor the articles; it is a consensus based collaborative effort. Please attempt to build a consensus with me before reverting me for a fourth time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.174.68 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor has been reported for breaking WP:3RR. And obviously doesn't understand WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You have now reverted four times. I only reverted 3. The three revert rule tells me not to revert more than three times, so I will not do that. Bit you must know that you are in violation of policy. It is obvious to me that you are very protective of this article and you are violating Wikipedia policy to protect it. 24.220.174.68 (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You must be confusing me with NeilN; we are two different people. I reverted you twice. NeilN reverted you twice. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

When your block expires: Articles such as these must be edited with care. The wording you were changing has been there since at least last June. It's okay if you want to change it, but if someone objects, it needs to go back to the way it was until the dispute has been settled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are people who are sex-assigned at birth as male or female who have not been XY and XX accordingly. It's true in the general case but not always. See complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, De la Chapelle syndrome and 5-alpha-reductase deficiency for exceptions. Saying 'assigned at birth' is more correct here - Alison ^❤ 09:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm less fascinated by the actual discussion, as I am by the fact that Wikipedia allows 2 or more editors to gang up on another editor to circumvent the 3RR rule. That's intellectually dishonest, wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I love it when cyber-bullies hide behind the rules to rationalise their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As a non-editor who turned up at this page after reading an interesting article in the Guardian by Fred McConnell which used the term cisgender, the article's unquestioning statement of the view that sex is something "assigned at birth" really jarred with me. On this point, the tone of this article clearly strays away from careful neutrality and takes sides in an argument. Most authorities (judging by the Wiki page on sex and gender) appear to hold the view that sex is something biological - that is, it is assigned before birth, insofar as the chromosomes, gametes, and sex organs which are normally described as male and female unquestionably exist before birth. In that sense, when the doctor says, "it's a boy", what he is assigning is a gender, not a sex. The idea that sex is something "assigned" at birth by human decree is a view that's taken (again, referring to the same wikipedia article) only by some social scientists. The view that sex divisions are a social construction is a minority position. I'm not saying it is wrong, necessarily, only that there is a clearly a controversy here, and the article has clearly taken a side. Sorry for not editing the article myself, I'm not going to sign up to Wikipedia just to participate in this particular dispute, but I thought I would drop in here to say that this section of the article seemed highly biased and undermined the authority of the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.141.57 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Same non-editor, back for more. This expression seems doubly unjustified considering that the introduction to THIS VERY ARTICLE refers to the assignation of gender, not sex. What's more, this is the only occasion when the notion of "assigning" either gender or sex is backed up with a footnote. Where's the attribution? This has obviously got to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.141.57 (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, 3rd comment. So I see now that the first mention of sex being assigned DOES get a footnote, but not a quotation. Did what I said I wouldn't do and signed up to an account so I can make this edit in an accountable way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdMB1 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Have now changed references of sex assignation at birth to gender assignation. Aside from the points I made above (basically, the previous state of the article was arguing one side of a controversy) I think this edit is fully justified by reference to the first source cited in the article, which can be found here. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iGYxbNBN8XcC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Multicultural+intricacies+in+professional+counseling&source=bl&ots=GKr_BbRhNd&sig=2ezs3y0YZtOqv14D82oVZ5STj9c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cW0tU6rHMaW60wW-94HoCQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=assigned%20at%20birth&f=false

Not only does the article by Crethar and Vargas fail to assert that sex is assigned at birth, it actually mentions "gender assignation." EdMB1 (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And finally before I go away and do something else with my day, here is the definition of "cisgender" as lifted from the cited article and the cited page (61): "Cisgender: People who possess a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex."

This could hardly be clearer. EdMB1 (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that this quote mentions sex and your source has "wrong sex was assigned at birth" I fail to understand why you changed "sex" to "gender". I've undone your change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, EdMB1, with regard to this edit you made, which NeilN reverted, the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources (and non-reliable sources, for that matter) on the topic of sex assignment use the words "sex assignment" instead of "gender assignment," which I noted with this WP:Dummy edit. However, per WP:Alternative title, I added "gender assignment" as an alternative title to the Sex assignment article, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

ME AGAIN! Well, now I have read the Wikipedia page on "Sex assignment", which I probably should have done earlier. I still think it's wrong to refer to sex assignment on this page, but it's worth accounting for why that's the case in light of the fact that this term exists. The page on "sex assignment" begins with a clarification: What the term refers to is "discernment", the recognition of a preexisting sex, not the allocation of a sex to a human which didn't previously have one. To quote: "these adults are not literally choosing a sex to assign to the child." I, and others who have commented here, interpreted this page's use of the term "assigned sex" to mean precisely that people allocate sex categories to babies when they are born. Some people subscribe to this view but it is a controversial one; it's certainly not taken for granted in a similar way in the articles on Gender or Sex and gender distinction. 82.32.141.57 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

EdMB1, make sure to always sign in, so that there is no confusion about who "me again" is. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks - and apologies for any other breaches of protocol. I'm not going to change this article back but I hope that somebody else will come along and do so. Anybody reading this who trusted Wikipedia as an impartial source of information and knew nothing else about sex and gender (unlikely I know!) would come away from it thinking that most authorities subscribe to the view that sex categories are assigned at birth. If you have been assigned something, that means you didn't already have it. When it comes to sex, that is a controversial view. EdMB1 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Human Vector (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) A baby's name is assigned at birth. A baby's sex is classified at birth. (Or pre-natally.) My argument is not that this classification is perfect. It isn't. People are imperfect. Nor do I argue that there are only two classes of sex. If there were, life would be simpler and less interesting. I only argue that we reserve the word "assignment" for cases where an authority makes an arbitrary choice, rather than one whose intent is objective categorization. For example, no authority can tick "female" on the birth certificate of a newborn with male genitals and a Y chromosome, without being successfully challenged. But parents can certainly assign this boy the name "Catherine". 'Assigned at birth' carries the aggrieved tone of a victim of oppression, but it misplaces its grievance. Such errors impede our progress toward justice, clarity and happiness.

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

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

Who makes this stuff up?

Serious question. Who founded this term and when? Who uses it (LGBT community, Scientist, psychologists? Is it wiki worthy? I mean people make up lots of terms and slang, many of which are more commonly used. My concern is a niche group of people started using the term and it is not relevant to readers.Mantion (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You can review the origins of the term in the citations of the article (and frankly, using the resources that have been placed in front of you is always preferable to requesting volunteer labor in explaining introductory-level material). You should also note that the provenance of a term is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standard; what is relevant is the existence of focused coverage of the concept in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not a space for your performance art regarding how ridiculous you find people being concerned with matters unfamiliar to you. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

As someone who knows nothing about the subject

I'm in the tech sector (don't hold it against me!) and I stumbled onto this article via web surfing. There's a saying in the technology world that may apply: a solution in search of a problem. This neologism doesn't seem to add anything new since it's going to be describing the overwhelming majority of people and plenty of terminology, made subtle through generations of use, seem to be already functioning. That a term can be created to describe a something with respect to a framework is a legitimate use and this is how science and maths work; the framework here being a subset of human sexualy and psychology. And yet, outside of that framework if the term adds nothing new, then apart from fashion why use it?

Just an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.174.7 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking why is the term used or why is there an article on it? If it's the first, that's not really relevant to Wikipedia. We don't really speculate on why things are notable. If you're asking why an article exists, it's because third party sources (books, newspapers, papers, etc.) have covered the concept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Where is a simple definition?

I came here to find what "cisgender woman" is, read a couple of paragraphs, and was none the wiser. Instead I see a load of obscure jargon and sexual politics. What does "male assigned male at birth" mean? Assigned by who? I went to Oxford Dictionary and it seems that "cisgender woman" is a "woman" by birth and inclination. I should have known better than to look at wikipedia for clarity. 202.81.249.162 (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you seek simple definitions, try the Wiktionary entry instead. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So Wikipedia articles aren't the place for explaining a concept, rather a platform for ideological manifestos in impenetrable jargon. 202.81.248.31 (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

More a place for in-depth explanations, but if this article suffers from "impenetrable jargon" it probably needs a rewrite. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it has jargon, it's an obscure term that people are trying to drag into the mainstream, from a section of society that is known for it's love of alternative terminology under the guise of politically correct language. It's a word that isn't required. It's like saying someone is a non-amputee - it's redundant, due to it being the norm, just as cisgender is irrelevant due to it being the norm. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: This is not a forum on the topic. If the article needs editing, please suggest how. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

PS, please don't try to shoehorn your POV into the lead sentence. Funcrunch undid your edit before and I just undid it again. The term is not seen as "politically correct" by many. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But it is seen as politically correct by a reliable source. In order to add content on this article, does the content have to be universally agreed on by all sources? Of course not. It's hardly a fringe theory from an unreliable source. It just happens to be a term that some editors who are a little too close to the subject do not approve of. Step back and try to be neutral and you will see it's just fine. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't like my one reliable source, I've put six reputable and reliable sources. I think those sources make it pretty clear that it is considered to be a politically correct term by a notable number of reliable source. Note that I put "considered by some" which makes things damn clear. As I've already said, don't remove content just because it states something to the contrary of your personal opinion/agenda/lifestyle. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No real dog in this fight, but I've moved it down in the opening paragraphs per WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. It doesn't need to be in the first few words of the article - Alison ^❤ 08:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of these are not RS or opinion pieces. Moreover LEAD needs to summarize the article and there's nothing in the article about this issue. Alison you mind weighing in further on this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a very good solution. Thanks, Alison. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"By birth" or "genetic" is a problematic label because many trans people actually have (genetic!) traits of the gender they identify with from birth, for example those with androgen insensitivity syndrome (from mutations or transcriptional/regulatory events affecting the androgen receptor pathway) or Klinefelter's syndrome. Many transgender people feel they were born female or male to begin with at birth, just that their assignment process failed to recognize it. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the word for those first examples is intersex, intersex people, many of whom identify with their sex assigned at birth. See also Intersex human rights#Gender identities and recognition Trankuility (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Many transgender people do have intersex characteristics they were just never formally diagnosed, or there is no clear way to assay them (for example, the intersex characteristics are secondary sex characteristics or are neurobiological in nature). "Natal" is still a problematic term because used in opposition to trans people it doesn't recognise that some people have had genetic or neurobiological characteristics of their true (target) sex since birth. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any argument that some transgender people are also intersex. The problem is when intersex people are, ipso facto, described as transgender, and that is what you implied when you said "many trans people actually have (genetic!) traits of the gender they identify with from birth, for example those with androgen insensitivity syndrome". Your language implies that intersex is a subset of transgender. Care is needed to ensure that just because someone has AIS, for example, they are not assumed to be transgender. It happens all the time, see here for example. Neither Caster Semenya nor Maria José Martínez-Patiño have indicated that their gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. Trankuility (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I never implied that all intersex people were transgender, but there is considerable overlap. Many intersex people reject their assigned gender, making them transgender. There are however many intersex people that do accept their assigned gender, making them cisgender. However, to describe "cisgender" people as "natal", "normal", "genetic male/female", etc. etc. is inherently problematic for many reasons, one of which is that many people have had genetic/neurological characteristics of their identified gender since birth. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It looked inadvertent, but re-read your initial statement. Separately, biological determinism is a problematic argument to use when it comes to gender identity. My understanding is that is no evidence for "neurological characteristics" as being definitively causative, and I doubt whether neurological sex characteristics can be any more predictive of gender identity than other kinds of sex characteristics. Trankuility (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an intersex trans male professor who has argued for using the term "ipso gender", rather than cisgender, for intersex people who accept their birth-assigned gender. I do not know if this term has been widely adopted by intersex people however. (I am a transsexual male myself, but not intersex to my knowledge.) Funcrunch (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yanping Nora Soong, the WP:Weasel wording guideline is not a valid reason to remove this. As noted above, that text should be moved down instead of being in the lead. The WP:Weasel wording guideline has not banned the word some. And like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Also, like I stated before, the LGBT community is divided on the term cisgender ; this source that I cited in that discussion, for example, states, "It's clear that some gay men and lesbians see 'cisgender' as a slur, a way of labeling them as elitists or conformists after all (i.e., as not 'queer' enough). Some think 'cisgender' validates the notion that there are two (and only two) genders, correlating with two (and only two) sexes, just as many are exploring non-binary gender identities, such as 'genderqueer.'" I will be adding this type of material to the article if no one beats me to it first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the queer community is pretty accepting on the word cisgender. The Anti-Violence Project in New York City, Callen-Lorde, APICHA, Ali Forney Center (all major forces in the queer community) etc. all use the term cisgender with virtually no objection. To use the word "normal" for non-trans people would be unacceptable. The LGBT community is not divided on the term "cisgender" -- those who oppose it are a tiny minority. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not hearsay. Unless you have a WP:Reliable source stating or indicating that "The LGBT community is not divided on the term 'cisgender' -- those who oppose it are a tiny minority.", such material will not be added to the article. What I intend to add, per above and per other sources I have, will be added. Some of what I noted above is already in the article. And nowhere did I suggest that there is talk of using the word normal for non-trans people. A lot of people simply use the wording "non-trans," and the wording "non-trans" is already noted in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

These criticisms may be reliably sourced for all I care, but sorry, they make no sense at all; they're just sophistry, word games, bad philosophy and elementary misunderstandings. The matter is actually fairly simple: transgender refers to a mismatch of gender identity and assigned gender, while cisgender refers to an agreement of gender identity and assigned gender. It is its completely obvious and logical complement when you are familiar with Latin-based international scientific vocabulary. Sure, it is a bit technical, but so is heterosexual, commonly shortened to het in LGBT circles, completely analogously to how cisgender is commonly shortened to cis in queer jargon. It carries no particular inherent implication or connotation – in fact, it was explicitly chosen by Serano and others for its neutrality.

Transgender itself can mean either of two things, though: sensu lato, when a person does not identify with their assigned binary gender, and sensu stricto, when a person identifies with the opposite binary gender from their assigned gender. It is this inherent ambiguity of transgender which makes cisgender a bit ambiguous as well – not every person with a non-binary gender identity identifies as transgender, and the ambiguity of the term transgender causes a certain ambiguity of cisgender as well. However, this is not the fault of the term cisgender – this is due to uncertainty surrounding the term transgender. The definitions as such are crystal-clear, it's just that there are two of them that slightly differ. For the following, I will use the wider definition.

Some people find the trans–cis dichotomy problematic. Fine. But that is not an issue specifically with the term cisgender – it's an issue with the term transgender as well, and mainly with that one, because cisgender is defined in opposition to it, quite explicitly. Replacing cisgender with non-transgender does not solve anything because cisgender means exactly "non-transgender" already. It would be as pointless as replacing monoamorous with non-polyamorous.

The other criticism is misplaced as well – intersex people have assigned genders, queer people have assigned genders, and for many if not most intersex and queer people, their gender identities do match with their assigned genders – thus they are cisgender. These are different, independent axes. Transgender has nothing to do with gender roles and gender expression – trans women can be utterly masculine/butch, trans men can be utterly feminine/femme, and it does not take one bit away from their transgender identity. (Note that non-binaries too can express themselves according to conventional gender roles, no problem.) Equally, cisgender people, of whatever orientation, and regardless of whether they are intersex or not, can reject (or embrace) conventional/traditional gender roles and forms of gender expression, they can be personally uncomfortable with gender roles and forms of gender expression (or welcome them), especially those enforced on them or which they feel pressured into, and it does not take one bit away from their cisgender identity because cisgender is simply about what gender you identify as. Cis men can be feminine, and cis women can be masculine as well. Certainly it happens sometimes that butch lesbians (or bisexuals) end up identifying as trans men, and femme (male-assigned) gays (or bisexuals) as trans women, but it is by no means automatic that you don't identify with your assigned gender when you don't identify with conventional expected gender roles for your assigned gender – many straight people do not, either. Gender identities and gender roles/expression are completely different pairs of shoes. So are transgender identity and intersexuality. This is all really basic stuff. (And of course, some people associating cis with being conventional or "square" or something even more negative, let alone the grimly sarcastic slogan die cis scum, doesn't make the term itself pejorative or even a slur – note that scum is the slur here, not cis –; it comes from the meaning and cultural or subcultural associations – yes, trans supremacy is a thing, sadly –; beware the euphemism treadmill.)

I find it hard to take such criticisms seriously when they get such basic things wrong. However, that does not mean that criticisms are not possible – the cis–trans dichotomy depends on binary assigned genders, and once children, or, well, people in general, can be assigned third gender or even no gender even legally, and be fully accepted socially as such, and come to think of it, perhaps imposed gender assignment will once be abandoned completely, yes, in those cases the cis–trans dichotomy will break down, because if a person has been, say, assigned third gender all their life, it's hard to tell if they should be classified as transgender, or cisgender, or something else, or not at all. But again, this is not a problem specifically of the term cisgender, and there is no easy fix. At their core, transgender and cisgender are just neutral descriptions for experiences of mismatch or agreement of gender identity vis-à-vis one's assigned gender. (By the way: It seems to me that those who take issue with the cis–trans dichotomy would be better advised to take issue with the practice to arbitrarily and nonconsensually categorise people via gender assignment in the first place. Will somebody please think of the children, like, really this time?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Without yet reading all of what you stated (I'll read it later), I reiterate that I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state; so does Wikipedia. If it went by personal opinions, I could add a lot from LGB people on forums who object to the term cisgender, for reasons I cited above. Keep in mind that enough people also consider the intersex community as part of the LGBT community, as noted in the LGBT article. There are also transgender people who don't like the term cisgender. I don't consider this the same as your comparisons made above. Criticism of the term is already in the article. I will be adding more, per what I stated above, and because this is an encyclopedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

And also keep in mind that even the initialism "LGBT" is criticized, for reasons noted in the Criticism section of the LGBT article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View, Statements of Opinion, Self-published sources

Hungerford's critique is crucial to understanding how 'cis' a term intended to level the playing field of trans and non-trans individuals actually erases the difference of what feminist theory views as male privilege and the social oppression resultant of male supremacy. In other words, 'cis' renders both men and women equal in a world where the political, economic and social differences between men and women are far from equal.'Italic text

1) The way this paragraph is phrased states as fact that cis erases male privilege and that Hungerford's critique explains how this happens. It is Hungerford's view that cis erases male privilege, but this is only one point of view. The paragraph should be rephrased.

2) The article appears on a group blog so is a self-published source. The radical feminist view point should be sourced to peer reviewed articles written by academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.180.202 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Furthermore, this section has a far-from-neutral tone, to the point that it seems deliberate:

Arguing that 'cis' is a form of 'specieism,' Vigo's essay takes to task the offense that 'cis' creates, reminding the reader of the historical dangers of essentializing racial, ethnic or other forms of somatic difference. Ultimately part of Vigo's essay demonstrates how cisgenderism is harmful to the construction of dialogue between those who are supportive of transgender persons while also protective of their right not to be named and those trans* individuals who seek out identity in part through linguistic re-namings of the self while also imposing prefixes onto those who do not share that modifier.

"Takes to task the offense that 'cis' creates" blames the term for offending and casts the isolated essay in an authoritative position. "Vigo's essay demonstrates how cisgenderism is harmful" implies agreement or indisputable, self-evident factuality in Vigo's arguments. "Their right not to be named" assumes a right that is not self-evident or commonly recognized (society normally conflates gender and sex as labels; most people are ignorant of the possibility of disputing these "names"). "Imposing" is a non-neutral interpretation of unintended connotation; for lack of socially conformist force (use of "cisgender" is far from conformist), "cisgender" cannot be assumed to "impose" without evidence, which this section does not provide currently. This section as a whole also lacks any response to these criticisms, though there is certainly more room for disagreement than its tone admits. The tile of this section itself is non-neutral: "problems" implies greater legitimacy to these criticisms than does "criticisms," which is more common on other Wikipedia pages, even where empirical research evidence exists to support the criticisms. As the above comment points out, points of view offered here are very limited, and far from satisfying any evidential standard for self-sufficiency. Alousybum (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole section was based on three opinion pieces (two blog posts and an online newsletter). Linking them together to indicate a debate is original research unless reliable sources are supplied to validate this fact. Moreover, the text itself did not describe the criticisms in neutral terms, or even in third-person; rather, it described the criticisms - valid or not, I have no position here - as self-evident. I've removed the whole section for now; it should be reinstated only if the text is much improved, and if some reliable sources are found to describe the ongoing academic debate around this term, if indeed it does exist. NauticaShades 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• This section is based on two pieces--a journal (Counterpunch is a journal) and an online journal. There is not linking to create a debate. This debate is active from just this week what Piers Morgan experienced. You are attempting to render this critique as subjective when I have just read it over thrice and find it to be quite objective. You clearly are not in gender studies but this debate is alive and kicking (ie. MacKinnon, Jeffreys, Milinovich, Glosswitch, and so many many more). Journalism is tackling this issue moreso than academia today. Also you fail to take into account the PC culture which is keeping many fearful for speaking out, hence blogs replace this. I think the problem with this wiki entry is that you have only presented half of the definition. Cis is completely offensive to numerous people and it is amazing that any entry does not deal with the contesting voices for this term. By the way Vigo is a gender theorist and has published widely on this subject.Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• • It is very hard to follow the discussion when you post in multiple places, and when you disrupt the chronological order of posts. Please try to post below previous messages in a discussion. There is nothing wrong per se with including criticisms of the term cisgender, although Wikipedia conventions tend to recommend avoiding a section devoted entirely to criticism if the discussion can be better incorporated in the text. However, the section you have now re-included contains a number of unreliable sources (three blogs). It mentions an article by Julian Vigo but does not reference it. There, finally, also a piece from the New Statesman, which does meet reliable source standards. Perhaps you can rework your section from this piece, perhaps using others from major publications. But be aware that what is really needed are reliable sources that discuss the debate, rather than participate in it. At the moment the text is not written in plain, encyclopedic English, and it is not neutral in tone: i.e., it makes arguments rather than discussing them. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a scholarly journal, or a publisher of original thought. An encyclopaedia is certainly not the place to advance a scholarly argument in the gender studies field. I can try to help you rework your section if you wish, but let's discuss it on the talk page instead of editing back and forth on the page itself.
  • One more thing: you said that "half of this entire page is from internet chatter and blogs." That is clearly not the case; as you can see from the references section, nearly all of the sources are from scholarly journals. There is, I admit, one section citing a blog (by Helen Boyd). You're right about that - I've removed it for the sake of consistency. NauticaShades 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't read this wall of text, but I reverted the edits. CounterPunch is generally not a WP:RS and there's no indication that these opinions are notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree--this term IS applied by people to unwilling objects of this labeling. This is the definition of imposing. You can see hundreds of interenet discussions where people object to this and name this even as violence. I these above critiques are terribly biased taking issue with an objective observation of 'linguistic bullying' which does go on around this term. As trans persons will tell you they dislike certain labels,so too do women and men refuse this term. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As for lacking response to these criticisms, hmmm...This sounds like a derail. There is no response AT ALL given to any of the pro-cis arguments. I think this is a non-issues. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are dozens of essays/articles written about this. I don't know who you have editing out academic discussion here, but this is dishonest. There is a whole body of academic discourse around this matter and the articles cited are fair. You speak of neutrality but you have Serrano in this entry which is VERY problematic as this person is not neutral at all. Serrano's work focuses on autobiography, and this person is not a scholar in this field. So you have essentially created a dichotomy of women's voices which don't matter even if they work in this field and then trans person's who autobiography (not peer-reviewed by the way) carpets the use of a word which many men and women do find dehumanizing. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is why it is an interpretation of the article. It should not be rephrased because it is clearly surmising the arguements therein. Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

HALF OF THIS ENTIRE PAGE IS FROM INTERNET CHATTER AND BLOGS OR BOOKS THAT ARE NOT PEER-REVIEWED! Disfasia (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(Disfasia (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Vigo ) Why has the published critiques of 'cis' been removed? this is whitewashing what is a well-established critique, published critiques no less.

Disfasia, I moved all of your comments down (except for your "18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)" post since Nauticashades replied to it) because, as noted by Nauticashades, you disrupted the flow of the thread and made it more difficult to follow; for example, you should not cut in between a person's post, making it ambiguous as to which comment is yours or the other person's. Your comment should come after that person's post, not right in between it (unless you are going to add a time stamp with that person's signature for that part of the person's post). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Body of the article

Spacecowboy420, you have done a good job in finding some reliable sources for this article. Would you care to summarize them and add some material to the body of the article. It already contains critique of the term, but not from this angle. Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick, the content grew with this edit, and I moved it down, per what is stated in the #Where is a simple definition? section about this not being lead material, and what you've stated in this section. Editors need to also be wary of WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't state that the IP's wording of "many medical academics" is precise ("some" is more accurate and "medical" perhaps needs context), but I'll leave it as is for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)