Talk:Cisgender/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Change Cisgender title to Cisgender

Cisgender vs Cisgender as this article's title:

When it comes to the use of italics, there are generally two main factors to consider: the type of work and the length of the title. In the case of "cisgender," it is not a title of a larger work, such as a book or film, and it is not a short work, such as a poem or short story. Therefore, it does not require italicization.

Cisgender is also not a holistic Latin title.

Italicization is typically reserved for titles of larger works, such as books, magazines, newspapers, films, and TV shows. The purpose of italicizing such titles is to distinguish them from the surrounding text and to give them prominence. This makes it easier for readers to identify and locate the works they are interested in.

On the other hand, shorter works such as articles, essays, and chapters in books do not typically require italicization. While it is common to use quotation marks for titles of shorter works, such as poems or short stories, this is not necessary for article titles.

In the case of "cisgender," it is a term used to describe a specific concept rather than a title of a larger work. It is not a proper noun, and it does not require any special formatting. Therefore, there is no need to italicize "cisgender" in the title of an article or any other written work.

In conclusion, italics are typically reserved for titles of larger works or for emphasis in the text. While it may be appropriate to use italics for certain titles, such as books or films, it is not necessary for terms like "cisgender" that do not require special formatting. In the case of an article about cisgender, the title can be written simply in standard capitalization without any need for italics or other special formatting.

I propose retitling this article from Cisgender to Cisgender. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 10:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It took me a moment to work out what you meant about moving the page but I think I get it now. This is not a page move at all. The only reason the title appears in italics is because of the {{italic title}} tag at the top. I agree that this is a bit weird. Transgender does not use an italic title and I am pretty sure that we should be consistent between those two articles. I'm inclined to remove the tag here. I also think that both articles might benefit from a quick check to see whether they are using italics correctly in their bodies. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. We have an answer. It was discussed here about a year ago. The idea is that this article is about the word "cisgender" and not about the state of being cisgender while the Transgender article is about the state of being transgender. This is at least partially true, although I don't think that the distinction is quite as clear cut as that. This article does describe what being cisgender is but it is more focused on the word itself while the other article does discuss the word but is more focussed on the thing itself. There probably isn't much that could be done to expand our coverage of actually being cisgender. We live in a world that loves to ask "Why are some people trans?" but recoils from asking "Why are most people cis?". I doubt that there is much scholarship into gender that focusses on this, although I'd be very happy to be proved wrong about that. (There is a part of me that thinks it would be incredibly funny to expand the article with a load of utter nonsense about "cisgenderism", "cisgender ideology" and "the cisgender agenda" but, don't worry, I'm not going to be disruptive just for a dumb joke. Besides, I'm sure that somebody funnier than I am must have already made that joke in a place more appropriate for satire.)

I remain in favour of removing the italic title but, as it was previously discussed on Talk, defended in terms of policy, and nobody else objected to that argument, I don't think the two of us alone can constitute a consensus to remove it. Does anybody else have any opinions on this? DanielRigal (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article appears to mainly be about the term so I'd keep the italics. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Maddy from Celeste – Check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Are most words on Wikipedia in italics? Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 18:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

From that page: In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. This is precisely the case here, so per MOS:WAW, we italicize it when referring to the word rather than the concept. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If transgender does not use a title in italics, then it makes no sense for cisgender to have an italicized title. Hist9600 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – It is rather common to find articles with "Title refers to ...", and it's almost always a mistake, or a bad idea. I think that's the case here. The article does have a lot about the term, but fundamentally it should be about the topic of being cisgender as opposed to transgender. Let's remove the italics, and remove the "refers to" in the opening sentence, and say what the topic is before getting into the details of the term. Dicklyon (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Concur with Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, the article should be about the topic (as indeed it seems to have been, or to have been considered to be, until sometime last year) and not italicized. -sche (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As the one who re-added all of the italicization, I don't really have an opinion on what the article should be about (the term or the concept), so I'm going to abstain (at least for now). LightNightLights ^(talk) 08:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Born25121642: I think your lead rewrite does flow better, but I am still of the opinion that the article is about the term and not the concept, and the lead sentence should reflect that. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of being too WP:BOLD, I will add this to the lede: "Within the framework of gender", due to the context of the usage of the term. Born25121642 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that helps. Are there any other contexts in which cisgender is used? Is it not clear within the first sentence, if not the word itself, that cisgender is related to gender? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Born25121642 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• As of right now, we have a body that is almost exclusively about the term, a lead that is mostly about the topic, and a non-italicized title. The easiest path to a tenable situation is to restore the lead to being mostly about the term and re-italicize the title. I agree that the best path forward is to make the body more about the topic. Is anyone planning to do so soon? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Devon Jin (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Devon Jin (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

This terminology represents some western cultures. It does not reflect all of those who maintain their birth gender. 151.249.67.101 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2023 (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. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request incorrect info

This is just trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cis gender is an offence slur used by no straight people. Its the same as calling a black person the N word 103.94.49.35 (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) The dictionary doesn't say so. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Every normal person is offended by the word 103.94.49.35 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I recommend to just remove blatant trolling such as this in future. People can ask questions in good faith but they can't come here just to yank our chains and waste our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality?

There article seems to have been evoking resistance from some people for some time, judging by the discussion. Do keep in mind that the Oxford Dictionary adding 'cisgender' to its listing (which could simply be out of political correctness) doesn't mean the term is accepted by most people or scientific. Furthermore, some have already pointed out that the word has been described as a slur. This page resembles a gay agenda flyer at times and I suppose that's why some have had a problem with it. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that neutrality (see especially WP:NPOV#note C) depends on due weight in reliable sources. Whether a viewpoint or word is accepted by most people or Wikipedia editors is not relevant. Likewise dogwhistles like “political correctness” and “gay agenda” are similarly unhelpful in building consensus. The article currently devotes a considerably sized section to notable published critiques of the term. Do you have a desired change in mind? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the article includes "a considerably sized section to notable published critiques of the term". That is why I recently added a brief note in the lead to summarise that dissent, but it was quickly reverted as being "Undue for lead paragraph". Would you support its mention in the lead? --Blurryman (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

Change the following: Cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) is a term used to describe a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth.[1]

to the following: Cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) is a term used to describe a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex identified at birth.[1] 62.232.140.106 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: "assigned" is clearly the predominant term used Cannolis (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of the term 'assigned' misrepresents the terminology of the citation. It would be more accurate to either change the terminology to reflect that of the current citation or remove/change the citation. Charnie90 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

We should change the citation then. "Assigned" is the term used (cf sex assignment). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "identified" instead of "assigned", which is wrong. NO ONE "assigns " a gender at birth unless the sexual organs of a newborn are either not present or both sets of organs are present. 47.188.43.55 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't expect logic or semantic clarity from the propagandists who replaced and coalesced "common gender" and "unmarked for gender" with and into the prescriptive, "gender neutral", where "neutral" describes denotative semantics rather than taxonomy (e. g., "you" is not characterised as "case neutral" or "put" as "tense neutral"). 185.205.225.132 (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that some people have a problem with the English language, not with Wikipedia. They don't like that certain words exist or are used. There is little to be gained by calling the dictionary out for a fight in a parking lot but, hey, if that's what they really want to do then I guess it is their time to waste. The important thing for this page is that it needs to be understood that Wikipedia is not the parking lot they are looking for! That pointless and ridiculous fight has to take place somewhere else, if it is to happen at all. This is straying well into WP:NOTFORUM territory and I advise against any further attempts to revive this discussion which ended a few months ago. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Excessive pruning?

How do we feel about this removal of a lot of content? Some of what was removed probably is overblown but is it all? Some of it may not have been well referenced but is all of it? Is any of it fixable with better references? Is there any baby in the bathwater here? If so, how much of it should be brought back? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Devon Jin, who added most of the comment, and FMSky, who removed it. Starting from the beginning, I think the lead changes were good. This entailed:

• A line on cisgender being common: "This is the case for the majority of people."
• A brief definition of transgender: "(which refers to someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth)"
• An added paragraph:

  Cisgender people typically do not experience the same challenges as transgender, non-binary, genderqueer, and genderfluid individuals; for example, cisgender people are less likely to experience gender dysphoria, the discomfort or distress that can occur when a person's gender identity does not match their assigned sex. Cisgender people have privileges that transgender, non-binary, genderqueer, and genderfluid individuals do not, such as greater access to public restrooms without fear of harassment or discrimination.

Are there issues with this content that I'm missing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It is mainly the last lead paragraph which is highly WP:UNDUE. Why mention problems that someone does NOT have? This is something that belongs in the transgender article instead. There is also a problem with unreliable sourcing, the initial edit by Devon Jin was even tagged for this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=1155415798 and i noticed they even included Urban Dictionary (!) as a reference -- FMSky (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that source was pretty bad. Do you have any issue with the lead changes prior to that last paragraph? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No they seem fine to me --FMSky (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I messed up the restoration, and thanks for cleaning it up. About that last paragraph: I'm seeing it as a summary of §Cisnormativity and cisgender privilege. Do you have any objections to the section as well? Or suggestions about how better to summarize it in the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really a summary as it was basically the same size as the whole section, and there were parts like "gender dysphoria" in the lead that were never brought up again in the whole article. If we were to add a summary of "cisnormativity and cisgender privilege" to the lead it would have to be considerably shorter and only contain stuff that's actually discussed in the section --FMSky (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Very fair. How about just

"Cisgender people's identity development is often viewed as normative, in contrast to transgender people's. Cisgender people are afforded cisgender privilege, a set of unearned advantages and rights."

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good to me - FMSky (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

Change the stated meaning of cisgender to its original official recognised definition. It is a politically biased edit that has been vandalised on this page and needs to be removed. 2A02:C7C:921B:1700:AC11:5EEE:531C:4DAC (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2023 (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. If there's a specific instance where we're using the incorrect definition please quote it, and what you suggest should be the replacement, and provide a reliable source if necessary to support the change. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Elon blurb Under History

I do not believe it is necessary to include the blurb about Elon Musk on his platform considering the term 'cis' to be a slur in his opinion. It's not historical or precedent. He is not a gender and sex scientist. If anything it would belong to the criticisms. However his opinions are just like any others, how is it more notable than the average person? 2601:1C0:8500:9BA0:DD3F:F4D3:FA95:18C0 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Seconded 208.185.97.170 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

+1 Jettacar (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Between this discussion, #Cisgender is not a slur, #Twitter slur, and #cisgender slur, I'm seeing a rough consensus to exclude the content relating to Musk's decision. I've removed it now from the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia definition for Cisgender says it is a “derogatory slur” on Google

When you Google “cisgender” there is a linked statement to Wikipedia stating Cisgender is “a derogatory slur”. This is misinformation and you likely should edit that. 2601:195:C47F:2420:6927:CA76:AF3:F249 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Googles crawlers handle what is displayed on google, until they check this page again it will say that (shouldn't take more then a few hours) Akaowen (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So this was a case of vandalism that was added earlier today, and reverted about fifteen minutes later. Unfortunately Google's cache seems to have picked it up. I'll see if there's a way to report it as stale with Google, but we might just have to wait until the next time they re-index the page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, figured out how to report it as a stale cache on Google's end. Not sure how long it will take for them to review and rectify it sadly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Google have now re-indexed the page, and the vandalised version now longer appears to be either the cached version or the version that appears in the Knowledge Graph panel. Not sure how quickly that takes to roll out to every localised version of Google, but if you refresh and it's still there it might just be taking a little longer in your region. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

First use in relation to gender

Was it not Ernst Burchard in 1914 who first did so? 2600:1700:42D1:1510:652B:6887:9E6A:2278 (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• The German word "cisvestismus" was listed by Ernst Burchard in his book "Lexicon des gesatmten Sexuallebens von Dr. med. Ernst Burchard arzt fur psychische und nervose Leiden", shortened to "Lexikon des gesamten Sexuallebens" (2014) on page 32 (actual page 36).
• The definition he gave was "Cisvestismus: die Neigung, die Kleidung einer anderen Altersstufe, Volks- oder Berufsklasse des gleichen Geschlechts zum Zwecke sexueller Entspannung anzulegen, dem Transvestismus verwandt (s. Verkleidungstreib)", which translated into English is "cisvestism: the tendency to put on the clothes of a different age, ethnic or professional class of the same sex for the purpose of sexual relaxation, related to transvestism (see disguise drive)".
• I think these days we'd call it "homeovesty" or "retrovesty", but I'm out of date on this.
• Here are the sources: https://www.digi-hub.de/viewer/image/BV047570799/36/ and https://magnus-hirschfeld.de/gedenken/personen/burchard-ernst/ and https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Lexikon_des_gesamten_Sexuallebens.html?id=B9EvnwEACAAJ and https://www.transadvocate.com/so-i-hear-trans-people-recently-invented-this-whole-cistrans-thing_n_9982.htm .
• The citation is "Burchard, Ernst (1914): Lexikon des gesamten Sexuallebens. Berlin: Adler-Verlag.".
• Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate this, I was getting lots of mixed information on who was the one who originated "cisgender" and this clears it up a lot. Almost feels like it warrants that claim being addressed in this page because many people are wrongly attributing it to him. 2600:1700:42D1:1510:652B:6887:9E6A:2278 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Bad Source

A popular discussion on social media right now is the idea that "Cisgender was coined by a "Pedosexual" Physician", from 4W written by "Genevive Gluck" a self proclaimed Feminist that has written multiple articles against Trans people, with signs of severe bias. Not to mention that 4W Itself is considered a biased source due to its author standards and philosophies. Please do not use this source on this article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

This is a slur and is offensive 2603:6010:3003:8D61:46E0:5A70:BCA:CF5 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I see nothing offensive here. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Cisgender never has and never will be a slur. It is only referring to if someone identifies with their assigned gender at birth. A cisgender man would be someone born male and identifies as such. 2600:100C:B251:89CC:D3E:7CB1:9078:EFDD (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Cisgender never has and never will be a slur."

It absolutely can be a slur if used in a condescending or derogatory manner. "Retard" was a word describing someone with a medical condition and referred to someone with "retarded mental development", and had wholly accepted use in medical journals in the 19th and 20th century. 68.57.66.97 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023 (2)

Cisgender is not a derogatory slur 2601:280:C781:4050:D0CE:4803:E499:C876 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2023 (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. Don't see where we call it one. Cannolis (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Cisgender is, in fact, a derogatory slur. 2601:285:C100:7F60:4842:9F18:D5A0:2FA (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The most assertive or confident person doesn't "win". Provide reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

To the people who keep on editing this page to just fit your opinion

Stop. This is taking up editors' time to fix the stuff you wrote into the Cisgender wiki page. It's also vandalism and isn't allowed. Please stop flocking over this page to just write biased statements, it does not help the editors or the readers in any shape or form. AT1738 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this up. I just wanted to point out that the same vandalism is happening on the matching cisgender wiktionary page. I have limited knowledge of how to properly report bad actors on wikimedia and so far have been unsuccessful in getting it fixed.

At the moment, a bad actor added content to frame "cisgender" as a slur, and other bad actors have stopped everyone else from removing the vandalism and locked the page. 92.26.198.66 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, just keeping the page locked for now will do the trick, I don't think this page needs much editing imo. AT1738 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The definition for Cisgender is not correct

The phrase 'gender assigned at birth' was coined in relation to intersex people. Intersex people are those that were born with a mixture of male & female biology. The phrase 'gender assigned at birth' relates to any medical decision that were made to aligned the person with either male or female. However, the medical profession CANNOT assign gender as gender is determined after the 22nd week of gestation. The medical profession cannot just snap on a determining gender as if it were body parts taken from a gender store.

At some point relatively recently that phrase was incorrectly shoehorned into the definition for cis, making the definition inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearningMuch7 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Although their origin among intersex movements may be notable (particularly if you have a source for such), reliable sources demonstrate that the terms AGAB and sex assignment are currently used in a way consistent with this article, to mean “the sex someone was identified as as an infant”. Even for intersex people, who may be assigned a binary sex that does not align with their own self-perception, “sex assignment” still refers to the (mis)identification of such, not to normative medical interventions they may or may not be subjected to. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, sex is not exactly the same as gender. 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:2127:FE0E:DDD3:B3C8 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Being incapable of identifying anything or anyone in his environment, much less himself, a newborn cannot possibly have a "gender". There is literally nothing to "assign". 185.205.225.132 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet people call babies "boy" or "girl", that's assigning a gender to them that they might not have. 84.5.187.137 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Boy and girl, as words, have nothing to do with gender, they're referencing the sex. 80.62.116.131 (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Female fetuses are sometimes aborted in some cultures because of the expected cost of dowries, so they have gender whether or not they ever go on to identify as such. At no point are they consciously participating in their culture, yet they're aborted because of their gender, since dowries are a social custom. Nineteenthly (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

New Draft concept article available

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cisgender

I've created Draft:Cisgender as a workspace for a article covering the concept of "cisgender". This contains the "concept" lead from revision 1163031713 of 15:01, 2 July 2023, the (since reverted) section about "Prevalence" by -sche from revision 1162827459 of 09:57, 1 July 2023, a bunch of empty sections to suggest a possible section organization for the new article, and some standard Appendixes.

Please help expand Draft:Cisgender as an article about the concept of "cisgender", as opposed to the word itself. I hope it gets to be a well-developed, full article on the topic, and when large enough not to be swamped by the content here, they can be merged into a single article. I'm also fine with renaming the current article to Cisgender (word), as suggested previously, and moving the Draft to just, plain, "Cisgender", once a bit of content is added to the empty sections in the draft (or they are removed). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added the {{Wiktionary}} template to both, and an {{About}} template to the "concept" draft. We should add the corresponding {{About}} template to the "word" article when the "concept" draft moves into mainspace. – .Raven  .talk 03:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Twitter slur

I dont think its relative or helpful to mention that elon musk considers it a slur. 208.185.97.170 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the reluctance but if reliable sources pick up the story then we might have to cover it no matter how obviously stupid it is. What we shouldn't do is amplify or overdramatise the story ourselves. If we cover it at all then we should follow the best sources, not the loudest, and keep it concise. DanielRigal (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

even with reliable sources it offers nothing to the article beyond advertising his views which isn't the point of the article. 152.117.114.248 (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Your revert refers to a "rough consensus" but reading the Talk page I don't see any consensus here. Only IPs arguing against inclusion, whereas @DanielRigal, @Maddy_from_Celeste and @Jenny_Death have not. Would you revert your change, because there is in fact no such consensus? PalmScrost (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue WP:NOTNEWS on this. It's not pertinent to the term/concept as a whole. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@PalmScrost: TheresNoTime removed two editor comments yesterday that I counted towards the rough consensus. At the time made the revert (19:20, 21 June) no editors had made arguments for inclusion, and several (4 IP editors, Joopfoop and Jettacar), had made arguments for exclusion.

However per WP:ONUS I will not self-revert on this. If you wish to see the sentence included in the article, then seek a consensus for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed this; didn't realize it had been added before. So, I've just added it, again I guess. The reason is, that it keeps popping up on social media, and I also included one other case I recalled from earlier, which is the one about Shatner. I think it needs to be better balanced by the fact that it always gets pushback, and that it's occurring in the context of an ongoing, larger culture war about "gender ideology" of which these are just more examples. (It's also second cousin to the TERF wars.) I don't disagree with the points above that individual kerfuffles on Twitter (other other social media) not necessarily deserving individual coverage (NOTNEWS, etc.) but to the extent that they are part of a continuing theme that keeps popping up long-term, and never really goes away but just simmers, I think they do. Maybe we could keep the theme using more general verbiage without necessarily naming the individual cases, and just keep the citations to the the Shatner and Musk incidents (and earlier ones which I recall, but can't name right now) as references for a more general statement. I won't object too much if someone reverts, but I think we should cover the general theme, somehow. The "Brydum" source (see note 24) is actually pretty well done and includes a range of viewpoints, and includes the term 'slur' once, albeit in a hypothetical usage with heterosexual, but essentially addressing the same issue at a very early date, even though the Shatner and Musk examples only occurred years later; but Rawson's remark makes it clear that he was aware of such usage even in 2015. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

More on this topic at section § Critiques, below. Mathglot (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve non-neutral tone

The sentence "In both cases there was a lot of pushback pointing out that it is merely a descriptive term." does not seem neutral. Would suggest "In both cases there was a lot of pushback arguing that the term is merely descriptive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holynightfever (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's neutral, because that is what the sources say. You may be misunderstanding how Wikipedia views neutrality. What it *doesn't* mean, is that we should present all sides equally. For example:

• Some people think the world is spherical^{[ref 1=NASA]}, but others argue that it is flat.^{[ref 2=Flat Earth Society]}

That is both a completely true, and verifiable statement, but we can't say that in Wikipedia's voice because that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, and hence non-neutral. Same thing here: the term cisgender is descriptive, and is the opposite of transgender, because that is what all the sources say. There are billions of users on social media (literally billions), and sure, it is not hard to find support for any position you want, but that doesn't mean they should be represented as "the other side" of any given question, as if they had equal weight in the discussion. See WP:DUE WEIGHT for more on this point. Otoh, the statement about pushback should be sourced. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. However the article itself states "The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique," suggesting there is still debate about this term. Therefore can we really make statements about it that are as objective and undeniable as "the Earth is round"? Also, "It's neutral, because that is what the sources say" - there aren't any sources as you noticed. Holynightfever (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was, that the sources are scattered all over the article, but the 'pushback' needs citing. In order to sort it all out, you could try to impartially search for every article you can find about it using unbiased queries, and see what proportion of them are critical or indicate controversy, and adjust the article accordingly. I think your questions are good ones, and are worth following up on. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've found the following articles:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/jk-rowling-elon-musk-cisgender-trans-slur-rcna90632

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/transphobic-war-cis-elon-musk-j-k-rowling-jordan-peterson-1234780337/

I would still argue that the current framing feels opinionated. There's no source for the amount of pushback - we say "a lot of" based on what exactly? How about: "In both cases there was pushback re-asserting that the term is merely descriptive" with citations for the above articles? Holynightfever (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fine; either that, or just take out the sentence, or take out the two paragraphs on Shatner and Musk. Before you do, though, have a look at some of the previous commentary about this at sections §§ Elon blurb Under History, Twitter slur, and Critiques. I think maybe we could say something more general and briefer, such as, "From time to time the term gains a level of public awareness when a celebrity objects to the term on social media," then citing the existing cases without naming the parties involved. That would probably be closer to the proper weight, if we keep it at all. It would be good to get some other editors commenting on this point to see what they think. Mathglot (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've read those sections. I see the point about not wanting to amplify one person's (Musk's) views, but I do think the article should cover the ongoing controversy around the term, and that is one way into it. Personally I find it very interesting how this quite correctly formed descriptive term can stir up such strong feelings and conversation. It is notable and to reduce it to one sentence doesn't feel like proper weight to me, although of course that is just my opinion as a very occasional editor. Holynightfever (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. Let's see if others weigh in. One thing that you could do would be to {{ping}} editors who have previously commented on this topic above, to draw their feedback. Mathglot (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about just removing the "pushback" sentence, but the problem with that is that leaves the two flareups about transphobic comments unchallenged, which seems worse. Maybe the whole paragraph should come out. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I've dropped the Shatner addition as undue, and Musk per previous discussion. If someone wants to formulate a more general sentence(s), and with a better source, please do. -sche (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sex is not “assigned” at birth - it is observed at birth.

“Assigned at birth” suggests that a deduction or choice is arbitrarily imposed when, in fact, it is merely observed based on scientifically straightforward biological fact. 208.49.194.162 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest reading about androgen insensitivity syndrome, one consequence of which is that genetically-male (XY) people with this syndrome are frequently "assigned 'female' at birth" by observation — as distinct from the "scientifically straightforward biological fact" established by genetic testing... usually when they get involved in sports, or ask a doctor why they can't get pregnant. Ironically, they're called "transgender" if they seek to make their body match their actual genetic sex. Some intersex people are in a similar observed-vs-fact situation. – .Raven  .talk 01:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We have no choice but to follow what the sources say, and that's what they call it. If you wish to raise a discussion about it, the proper place would be at Talk:Sex assignment, but be aware that it has been discussed many times before, always coming down to the same result: WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, quality sources indicate that "assigned at birth" is a term from OB/GYN to refer to intersex babies. That the term has been appropriated (some would say misappropriated) and used more broadly to mean "unambiguous biological sex observed at birth" by some writers (mostly in a particular socio-political camp) doesn't mean that WP has to adopt this imprecise and potentially confusing extended usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)