Talk:Cisgender

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cisgender article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 3 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 29 March 2006, see discussion.
Keep, 5 November 2012, see discussion.

Gender studies Mid‑importance

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

Mid

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

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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

LGBTQ+ studies

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

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Alex Hern (August 23, 2013). "Behind the Wikipedia wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea". The New Statesman. Retrieved August 23, 2013.

"Cisidentity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cisidentity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 12 § Cisidentity until a consensus is reached. LIrala (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italicised title?

Interestingly, the title for the article is italicised, even though its other article (Transgender) is not. It appears to have been introduced by revision 1038666950, but I don't see why MOS:WAW would apply to titles? BlankEclair (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is because this is an article largely about the word cisgender while the transgender article is largely about transgender people. I agree that it is a bit odd but it is hard to have an article about cisgender people as the state of being cisgender is very rarely studied. DanielRigal (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying, I didn't quite notice that--thanks! BlankEclair (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misremember MOS:REFERSTO and MOS:WAW giving clearer guidance on this, but:

Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, some of our articles are primarily about words rather than the concept they describe. In that case we use Template:italic title to cause the title to display in italics, and we disobey popular wisdom by writing the first sentence in the format Foobar refers to.... –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cisphobia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cisphobia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 17 § Cisphobia until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

Yes the critique section makes up 50% of the body, but they’re individual critiques by - with the exception of Elon - completely non-notable individuals. Saying in the lede that it’s controversial is blatant false balance.

@Golikom Snokalok (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that doesn't like "critique"? Would it less pretentious to say "criticism"?

Anyway, I agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. Serious, good faith criticism of the term exists but only to a minor degree. We might even be over-covering it in the body. The loudest criticisms are not rational critiques at all, or even all made in good faith, just loud people who don't want there to be a word moaning about it.

(I was going to suggest splitting the section but it isn't really possible for us to label which criticisms are which, even if we all sort of know. Besides it would be POV to have subsections for "Actual criticism" and "Petulant kvetching"

) --DanielRigal (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, criticism is criticism. Whether it comes from a place of warmth or hate has no baring on the existence of it. If many people react negatively to the term "cisgender," which you do seem to acknowledge is the case, then saying the term is controversial is an accurate statement.

The article does not do a good job of providing very many examples, but if more were added then the article would be even more dominated by that section.

Based on this, I will reinstate the sentence, but remove the second clause which says it's subject to critique. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the article is extended protected. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proper thing to do in that case is to probably start trimming the critique section. Opinions cited to primary WP:RSOPINION sources with no relevant expertise get their significance from the author; if the author has no expertise and is not otherwise noteworthy, they shouldn't be included. Even for opinions from people with relevant expertise, it's important not to include the same opinion over and over again from different people - the purpose is to illustrate opinions, not for editors to engage in nose-counting or to make a position appear more significant than it actually is by quoting every single scholar who holds it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace this: "The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth,"

To this: "A cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) person has a gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth," CoolBaljeetFan12 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I can see why you would suggest this but there is a good reason why we can't do this without changing the article more fundamentally. The article title is in italics because currently this is an article about the word cisgender rather than about the state of being cisgender. Personally, I'd be happy if this could be converted into an article about being cisgender but that would be very hard to do. There isn't much source material for this. Nobody studies cisgender people to ask how we live or how we got like this even though it would be every bit as valid ask these questions as it is to ask them about transgender people. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this that I should edit and change: "A cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) person has a gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth," CoolBaljeetFan12 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]