Talk:Cisgender

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

We probably could have an article on this, but not this. Blue Talk 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to take a crack at it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do. I look forward to seeing how your critique of REDSREDSREDS will shape it. P-Foster (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Surprisingly, the Reds do not come into it all that much; it can, I think, be established that postmodernism is a pile of bunk without having to make any reference to its Marxist influences. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you muster so much antipathy for a word meaning 'not transgendered'? Me, The First (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's LX, our little ball of hate. P-Foster (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Because it was cooked up by roughly the same cadre of shysters responsible for most of the present creationist rhetoric, who are also doing the exact opposite of what is needed to make "gender-normativity" not matter so much. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Who specifically do you mean? Me, The First (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Postmodernists. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The specific people you had in mind were an enormous group that includes me? Me, The First (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I would not use "postmodernist" and "enormous group" in the same sentence. But if you want to nitpick, I would narrow it down to those postmodernists as have made enough noise to permit creationists to latch onto the idea that science is "mythology," or a "cultural construct," etc. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Postmodernists in Florida are being pecked by an enormous group of seagulls
I'm finding it really hard to be angry with you, even if you do think of me as a creationist enabler. So I'm not going to waste my first conversation with you in ages on pointless bickering. Instead, I will pass a merry half-hour reading your extraordinary collection of userboxes. Have you revamped the 'Jesus was a red' one? It looks a lot more striking than I remember. Me, The First (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased[edit]

This article is massively biased. I can tell the author has a serious hatred for any and all things that might have once looked hard in the direction of postmodernism, but really -- the opening paragraph is wholly unnecessary, and moreover entirely wrong. Check this out: "Cisgender is an adjective indicating that a person or people identifies with the gender assigned to them at birth. It is a neologism coined as the antonym to "transgender"." Two sentences, word explained. If you absolutely must go into the history of the word or why people might use it (we'd rather be thought of as a normal part of human variation than a living freakshow, which is how we're usually treated -- it is no skin off your back to use respectful language), then cool. It's still a somewhat obscure and controversial term (although usage is increasing). "Heterosexual" is *also* of relatively recent, context-specific coinage too -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexuality#Etymology for details. Nobody seems to be arguing these days that it's a tool of imaginary jackbooted PC police. — Unsigned, by: Kalika / talk / contribs

We'd rather be thought of as a normal part of human variation than a living freakshow... If by "we" you mean postmodernists, I understand that they are greatly against strict categorizations, such as distinguishing between "normal parts of human variation" and "living freak-shows." Hence, I fail to see the problem.
Nobody seems to be arguing these days that it's a tool of imaginary jackbooted PC police. Could that possibly be because Richard von Krafft-Ebing was not a queer-theorist, but instead thought homosexuality was a mental disease? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

As this term only exists in the context of transgender issues, should this article be a section of that one? Keep the redirect though. Sophiebecause liberals 22:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Utter junk[edit]

The article might be salvageable, but since it is mostly full of crap, it will take some work.

It doesn't even define the term clearly. Somebody has an agenda here, perhaps? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has an agenda here. What exactly do you find problematic with it, or are you just generally cranky? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 04:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what's unclear. If your genes match your brain, you're cisgender. End of story.
I removed the "identity politics" and "political correctness" labels because they're superfluous. Complaining about the word "cisgender" reminds me of straight people complaining about the word "straight," because they would rather be called "normal." Wehpudicabok (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What is a steel brain star?[edit]

What? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it just means the article hasn't been rated yet. It's just a stub after all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
"not received a brainstar for quality." Weren't we getting rid of these though? Peter mqzp 06:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We got rid of copper (rightly) but not "this article has been rated as unrated" which is what this one amounts to. It's completely pointless. SophieWilder 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
More recently it was proposed that the rating template itself be done away with, to which there was no objection. It hasn't actually happened yet, however. Peter mqzp 08:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not super trivial. It would take a script going through to remove them all. I really don't have time to code that by hand for the time being, but I know Blue is running PyWikiPediaBoth, which I believe makes it easy. Not that I can volunteer her. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we move this section to Brainstar? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Gender-normative[edit]

Ugh. I've added the same point twice now, in different wording, and both times I'm not sure whether or not I'm being redundant. Here goes...

"It is more precise than "gender-normative" (which can mean the same as "cisgender") and does not generally imply normative gender roles."

That's the original text. What exactly does it mean to "imply normative gender roles"? It's ambiguous. It could be read as either "implying that cisgender people behave according to their traditional gender roles" or "implying that cisgender people advocate that society enforce traditional gender roles." Personally, whenever I hear the word "normative" I instantly think of that second definition, which is why I keep bringing up heteronormativity and emphasizing that that isn't what we're talking about. I'll grant that my reworking of this sentence doesn't really improve it, but I don't want to see the article left in a version that doesn't properly make this distinction, because it is an important one. Wehpudicabok (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware anyone used "gender-normative" as synonymous with the cis/trans distinction. Not sure it adds anything until someone can explain what it's supposed to mean. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how to explain the difference myself, although it seems that "cis/trans" are descriptive while "gender-normative" describes a prescriptive concept. Does that make sense? EVDebs (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It makes sense to me. I like the way it reads now. Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that I, as a trans person, also possess a gender role that conforms with those norms except in being trans; the use of the term gender-normative as described in the opening paragraph of this article is incorrect, since it does not refer to behaviours associated with assigned sex but with perceived gender - that is, normative behaviours for women are wearing dresses and makeup, they are not normative behaviours for people with vaginas, natural estrogen as the dominant sex hormone, Mullerian tracts and XX chromosones. 192.76.7.216 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Honestly I don't know how most people use "gender-normative", but googling the term gives me results like this one, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, which uses "gender-normative" interchangeably with cisgender. If we're going by that definition, the above is incorrect.
But honestly, I think the problem with "gender-normative" as a phrase is that people use it without considering, or even being aware of, these distinctions. Which is why the term "cisgender" is useful: it actually has a precise definition we can work with. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Irrationality Award[edit]

This blurb is so irrational, I am beyond words as to how it gets this treatment in a supposedly "rational" wiki. Aren't rationals supposed to promote good science and trash pseudo-science? The idea of a brain gender is no more justified than the idea of spirits or gods. They are the result of imaginary thoughts brought to bear on reality. We have come to a sad day indeed when the imaginary trumps science on a rational page. Maybe I misunderstood the objectives of the RationalWiki and this is a big joke?--TNT (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This has little to do with "brain sex" as a scientific phenomenon and relies on the stark division between gender and sex that a lot of theorists like to draw. Also, how are thoughts imaginary? If I'm thinking them, it is a physical process. I'd argue with you some more but I generally dislike the term cisgender regardless. Blue Talk 21:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
And yet we can observe gender in the brain scientifically. A male-to-female transsexual will have a brain more resembling a cisgender female brain than a cisgender male brain, even before transition, which suggests that gender does exist in the brain in a scientifically verifiable manner.
Just because it challenges your preconceptions doesn't make it unscientific. Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
this is not supported; to date there have been a few very small correlation-based studies on MtF trans people; generalising from them to ALL MtF trans people, generalising from them to all trans people, and drawing causal conclusions such as the above are very much NOT scientific; there is, for example, insufficient evidence to conclude that "brain sex" PRECEDES gender dysphoria (or transition, which is a difficult term to justify there anyway, since it can refer to many different things) 192.76.7.216 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I really dislike terms like cisgender. Nothing like academia to de-humanise folk AMassiveGay (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that there's no ordinary word for "cisgender." I mean, we have the clinical "heterosexual" and the ordinary "straight," but there's no counterpart for "cisgender" in common discourse. What do you propose we use?
Seems to me 'straight' would serve very well as a 'counterpart' to "cisgender". You say (probably correctly) that 'heterosexual' is a clinical term. But I am not at all sure that "cisgender" is a clinical term. It seems to me that <gender> is a contended construct, in as much as some researchers are adamant that brains can be sexed, and other academics are adamant that brains can't be sexed. If I may risk a POV; in the past anyone who wanted to refer to an individual or a group as being 'straight', would have used the term <straight>. Nowadays, some people prefer to use the term <cis> or <cisgender>. For me, it is the purpose that counts - as long as the user is not name-calling, then they may use the term <cis>, and I will assume they mean <straight>. As you can see, I could not think of a ready alternative to 'straight', as all the alternatives are 'loaded', and even <straight> has connotations. In future I think I will try to imagine that 'straight' has been derived from 'straight-laced', as opposed to 'bent'. 82.32.112.174 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
And how exactly is this dehumanizing? Frankly considering how easy cisgender people have it I'm not too sympathetic over the plight of one little word. Wehpudicabok (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
As the need to describe certain things that deviate from an expected norm arises, so, sometimes, does a need to describe that expected norm in specific terms. Calling someone whose perceived gender matches their physical gender "cisgender" is no different from referring to someone with no significant mental handicaps or aberrations as "neurotypical" -- neither is dehumanizing, simply descriptive. If the idea offends you, well, tough shit. You're not actually being insulted, so stop acting like you are. EVDebs (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason I dislike the term cisgender is because defining it is pretty hard. Is a drag queen cisgender or transgender? Let's not pretend that a lot of people's definitions wouldn't clash over questions like that. I prefer just "cis" and "trans" over "cisgender" and "transgender" because there can be more clarity in generality, as it were. Blue Talk 04:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
If the drag queen identifies as male and was assigned male at birth, they are cisgender. If they do not identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, they are trans. How is that hard? 192.76.7.216 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hm, interesting point, although it might get a little squishy contextually. (Also, I'm pretty sure most drag queens and cross-dressers are cis, although the latter are some degree of genderqueer. There are exceptions though -- Zinnia Jones comes to mind.) EVDebs (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think just defining "cisgender" as encompassing anyone who doesn't identify as transgender ought to cover everything neatly. I don't know any drag queens personally, but if they think of themselves as trans, then they aren't cis; and vice versa. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Bias[edit]

I took away some of the Bias from this article. Personal feelings should not be involved while educating people on terms. Be rational. Iruki (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your Benign Interference. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not quite understand why you reverted the edits back to their biased undertones. I thought this Wiki was supposed to be rational, afterall. I feel as if going straight to calling cisgendered people transphobes for being offended by the word Cis can be quite a jump to conclusions. Iruki (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, this wiki is OK with opinions that are based in fact; this tends to confuse some newcomers who somehow still think they're on Wikipedia. Nevertheless in this case, we are actually better off without the section that made that claim, and Weaseloid has since re-removed it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Iruki (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The origins of the term and other uses[edit]

The use of the prefix cis- in the field of gender dates back to at least 1914, where it appears in Ernst Burchard's "Lexikon des gesamten Sexuallebens" in the context of "cisvestitismus" as the alternative to "transvestitismus", with the latter referring to crossdressing. 192.76.7.216 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Added! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is dangerously rational[edit]

I'd like to personally commend whoever wrote this article, as it makes some of the most sound, rational points I have ever seen, such as implying that anyone who dislikes a term is automatically a transphobe, a point which is then backed up via rhetorical question to the reader. It's articles like these that really stand out as being a testament to what rational thought can offer this world and why it is so important.

Is something offensive? "It shouldn't be."

^^ Nothing spells out "rational" like an article that claims to know what should or shouldn't be taken offensively by anyone. And how could it be wrong? They did, after all, prove their point by asking a question. Parogar (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Die cis scum WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
^^ That must be a compliment since there's no way the word could ever be used as a slur. Parogar (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If you put scum after any word it makes the sentence offensive. Cis isn't a slur, it's descriptive --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I really don't hear it much outside people who are transgendered. That's why I don't see how people who don't like it can be considered hateful of transgenderds when you're telling them that they suddenly must accept a foreign and strange sounding word. That's not transphobia. it's wrong to blanket insult everyone for not agreeing with you by calling them a transphobe. I don't hate transgendered people and I'm not a fan of being called "cis." Parogar (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Where exactly do you think the term comes from? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
And do you have the same objection to being called "hetero"? (-sexual, that is) --ZooGuard (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe his main objection is just that its pronunciation is identical to 'sis'? *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well the prefix is borrowed from Latin so he should take it out on the Ancient Romans not us --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The Ancient Romans pronounced it as 'kiss' though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting, do you know when the pronunciation changed? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the 'palatalization' of "c" in front of certain vowels was happening in the period before the 10th century, and it was an all-natural process. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
And there goes any credibility you had about not being a bigotted douchebag. You blow around to every page about frequently hated groups, and point out how irrational it is to call out bigots. To me, at least, you've got no credibility left. Ikanreed (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure he is just trying to get responses out of us. His post here [1] is one of the most repulsive things I've seen posted on here in a while --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is just my own, personal, line being crossed. I live for devil's advocate arguments, but I can't stand people who feign thinking anti-bigotry is somehow irrational to cover for being bigots(usually with prepacakaged "how dare you call me a bigot" caveats). Ikanreed (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I see, well I don't think a single one of his edits have been constructive, if he comes back and does it again I'll not engage him --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If this troll keeps getting your goats, I'm gonna robrail him. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Robrail? Ikanreed (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Robrail.
Did you seriously call me a troll? Time out for a second. I disagree with "cisgender" so that makes me a bigot troll? I thought this was supposed be RATIONAL Wiki not PARANOID wiki. Honestly, it is an affront to the word "rational" that any of you may claim to be supporters of rational thought. You're extremists. I have not seen such abject ignorance since my dealings with creationists. Such small-mindedness. It's startling. I've tried to be polite here, but the fact that you're saying I'm a "bigot" and a "troll" for disliking the word "cis" (which sounds like "sis and sissy and cess") is a clear-cut example that you are not rational, you are not interested in promoting intellectualism, because you are an emotional activist out to take offense where none was intended. For fuck's sake! You are behaving like a fucking creationist! Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Are you even aware of the meaning of the word troll? Parogar (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
"bigotted douchebag" <-- That's what you think I am? Oh, my friend, you've only to look in the mirror. I'm not a transphobe. I have not made a single disparaging remark on here about transgendered individuals. I merely dislike "cisgender." and dislike being labeled as a transphobe because my ears don't happen to appreciate a word. And yet that makes me a "bigotted douchebag?" Where are the supposedly rational people that live on this website? I honestly can't believe how similar this feels to speaking with creationists. It's jaded my outlook on life. Maybe we're no better than them after all. I mean, just look at the reactions people have. "Oh, no! Someone's disagreeing with my views on an issue! Bigotted douchebag! Credibility lost!

Perhaps you'd appreciate my points more if I presented them to you in a way that you might have a chance of comprehending. Do you enjoy puppet shows? I might have to start using little toy puppets and acting out the scenes. Maybe then you'll understand what I'm actually trying to say instead of drawing absurd conclusions. Parogar (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


@-Drowninginlimbo If you found my post to be "repulsive" then it's because you didn't understand it. I've stated many times I believe that women are equal to men. The point of that post was to expose the nature of subjectivity, and why making blanket claims we can't prove BASED on subjectivity is a problem for a place that calls itself rational. Whether or not you agree with that is fine. Calling it repulsive, however, is the sign of a conservative thinker who fears change and rational thought. Parogar (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry bro, I'm gonna have to go with the quite reasonable "Don't feed the troll" advice cooler heads than mine have been dispensing. Take a break from your crusade against perceived moralizing for a bit. Edit another subject for a while. Ikanreed (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm open minded about the nuances in these issues, but I have a core set of beliefs. For instance, I don't think a progressive society should refuse women the ability to survive without men. If women can't work under capitalism, then they are reliant on the income of their fathers or husbands to exist. I don't think there is any evidence that could change my mind on this particular issue and I find it uncomfortable having to defend it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Except I'm not actually a troll. From your OWN Wikia! "Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation." Rationalism

Is it rational to assume that people who dislike the word "cisgender" are inherently transphobic? No, it is not. That is based on personal feelings and is not rooted in logic or empirical observation.

Is it rational to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobe bigot? No, it is also not rational. If anything, I could say you're the troll in this. Parogar (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It may sound condescending to say this, but relax. Whether you intended it or not, what you said offended some folks. That's the nature of this kind of conversation, I suppose. You drew some of the folks best suited to coherently argue against your point of view (Ikanreed and Drowninginlimbo). Lately they've been arguing against some real sleazes. Whether you are bigoted douchebag or not (after your first couple of posts, you didn't seem like one), you have said some things similar to those who really are bigoted douchebags. I did say that we've had some MRA-like shitstorms lately and we might be sensitive. Well, here it is. So, if you want to continue, relax. It may be too late, but, then again, maybe not. MarmotHead (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Marmothead. I deeply apologize for anyone I might have offended, but HOW did I offend them? I asked simple questions and avoided using any kind of derogatory words. I say this without any intention to brag or "earn a cookie". I have caused myself great harm in my fight for LGBT rights. I have shunned and cast aside thousands of people. I have demanded that homophobes stop reading my works. I have never faltered ONCE in my support of LGBT causes and human rights. And yet, I am "offensive" because I don't like a word? How is that offensive? Parogar (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
(EC) You came here with a lot of facetious & sarcastic comments & haven't made it clear what you dislike or find offensive about the word cisgender, nor what alternative terms you would suggest. "I just don't like it" is a shitty rationale, and is very often used when rejecting inclusive language in favour of older & more prejudicial terms. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's what you did wrong. Merits aside: you said things people disagreed with. Hence you are a troll and will probably be vandal binned or blocked if you continue commenting. Forget about editing articles. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Nutty states it MUCH more strongly than I would, but it's close enough. There's a tendency here towards groupthink and that gets reinforced much more when we feel attacked then if we're just poked a little. Yes, we have to be open to dissenters, but it helps if dissenters appear friendly to us. MarmotHead (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to do any of those things, @Weaseloid. That's a deflection. My argument is not that the word needs to change. My argument is not that the word is wrong. My argument is not to replace it with another word. Hell, I'm not even telling you to drop your support of the word. My argument (which not one single person has addressed. NOT EVEN ONE OF YOU) is actually quite simpler than that. I am arguing that it is wrong and irrational to assume that the rejection of the term is in most cases based on transphobia or being a TERF. Unless you have some kind of evidence that it is, then I fail to see how you can present this as a factual claim with literally nothing to support it. Parogar (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Side note to Parogar: This (↑↑) is better. Not best, yet, but better. MarmotHead (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Marmot To be honest I think it's complete bullshit that we even have the word "transgender" in the first place. If someone is a transgender woman they should just be called woman. If someone says they're a woman, they're a woman. It shouldn't require special labels. There should be no cisgender, and there should be not transgendered. Parogar (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I'm not transgender, so I can't speak authoritatively, but I think there's also something about the transition and desire to transition that make them unique enough that a separate word might be useful. Then, to fit our societal tendency to dichotomize, cisgender gets invented ... and offends some people's ears. MarmotHead (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But my issue with this article is that it speaks from a position of hatred and bigotry when it assumed that anyone who does not like the word is themselves a hateful bigot. They should really make a logic or whatever name for that. It's a common tactic I've seen all my life.
"You disagree with the war and Iraq? Why do you hate America and love terrorism so much?" <-- You ever seen that before? I see it a lot LOL. But yeah, I realize that bias is allowed in these articles, but I also feel like there is an incongruity between presenting facts in a bias manner and presenting bullshit as facts. Parogar (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so your one and only thing that you are on this talk page for is supposedly that our article says that "rejection of the term is in most cases based on transphobia or being a TERF". Well, tell you what, by golly, have another look at our article, then, because our article doesn't say that. Have a real close look at the wording, the way the "offensive" section is worded. It specifically says "some transphobes, especially TERFs consider it a slur". That's not to say that most people who reject the term are transphobes or TERFs, it's not even saying that most people who consider it quote unquote offensive. Might I remind you that considering a term a slur is not the same thing, but pretty close, as considering something offensive, and both of those things are far far away from being the same thing as not liking or rejecting a term. It's simply saying that there are some people, who are transphobes and TERFs, who consider it a slur. That's literally it. Nothing wrong about that. Problem solved. Nullahnung (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The way it is written clearly implies that it shouldn't be offensive, but then you've got those transphobes and terfs! And so on. It's the tone that comes across. Come on, let's not deny it. Parogar (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me spell it out for you: "It shouldn't be offensive, but it's offensive to some people. In fact, there are even transphobes and TERFs who consider it a slur!" Very very important here being the distinction that a term being offensive is not the same thing as it being a slur. But being a slur obviously makes a term offensive. Subsets within supersets. Be precise with language. Nullahnung (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Then why can't there be two sections? This section is clearly labeled "Offensive." Why not have "Offensive" and "Use as a slur?" As it stands, the section "Offensive" implies that whatever is written below is in regards to it being offensive. Parogar (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Being a slur automatically makes a term offensive, but being offensive to some people doesn't automatically make a term a slur. That's the relevant link here. Nullahnung (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The word sounds like shit. That's all there is to it[edit]

Instead of automatically assuming that the ONLY reason people could possibly hate a word is because they hate transgender people (which is fucking ridiculous because the word doesn't even APPLY to people who are transgender) maybe it would be better to consider that people might not like the word because it sounds fucking awful.

"Cis" sounds like "cess" as in "Cesspit, cesspool, etc."

It sounds like "sissy." It has a horrible ring to it.

That's why I don't like it. And instead of accusing me of being a bigotted douchebag, perhaps one should use some objectivity and realize that not everything is about bigotry.

How could it even BE about bigotry? The word does NOT apply to transgendereds. It's exclusively used for people who were born the sex they are now. That's like saying I find "woman" offensive to men. How? If the word doesn't even apply to people who are TG, then how is it offensive to them if I don't like it?

"You're offending me by not liking a label I've chosen to attach to you! That makes you hate me by not liking the word I created to be used on you!" Fucking ridiculous. I can't believe I'm the one being called a bigot. Rational thought, people. FUCK! Parogar (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, since everyone else is replying, I can't just stay out. Look, I've never called anyone cisgendered in my life. It doesn't come up much. I called you a bigot because you're making such a big deal out of a label that's used so rarely, over such petty reasons. The problem is you're rushing in to protect empowered majorities from dis-empowered minorities over perceived slights and then when the discussion starts, you go as far as admitting you don't actually want to change anything, just be offended on behalf of a "persecuted" majority. When that inevitably results in you being called a bigot, it's not because you're not allowed to be annoyed by the term. It's not even because of how you're annoyed by the term, it's the way the only things you can bring yourself to care about on this wiki are exactly this sort of thing.
It comes off, and I still think rightly, as having never considered any perspective besides your own. Ikanreed (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Where do you live that trans people are frequently referring to you as cis in an insulting manner? The trans people that I know here are regularly harassed in the street by transphobes and a friend of mine was even beat up near the gay district last year. Have some perspective --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's mostly angry fans. Mostly teenagers who are MTF TG. Parogar (talk) I can't tell you how many times a sixteen-year-old MTF Trans girl has called me a "cissy". Parogar (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Can I move there? That sounds preferable --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not in real life. It's on the internet. In fact, this is one of the messages: http://postimg.org/image/73zts9rm1/
^^ As you can see, they were VERY angry at me for making a mistake I screw up on a lot. There are so many terms that I get confused sometimes. Parogar (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I imagined that would be the case. In that instance "cis" isn't any more a slur than "male" is, they are descriptive --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I was more trying to show you the usual comments I get on the angry side. This might be taken offensively, but in my experiences, having a conversation with either a feminist or a transgender person about ANYTHING (flowers, road signs, video games, history) is like navigating a minefield waiting to say one wrong thing and invite an explosion of harsh badgering and critique. It's why I consider myself an egalitarian and I remain unaligned with any gender-specific causes. Parogar (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't socialise with a person who shouts at me like that. That's surprising because I find it fairly easy. I've never really understood that notion to be completely honest. It may be more due to the way that you communicate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (ec)You might not have considered this: it's a minefield for a good reason. There's pretty good cause to imagine someone casually dismissing concerns of a group of people historically oppressed for trivial reasons might just be continuing that oppression under shallow guises. Also: fuck you for being yet another person misusing "egalitarian" in yet another casual dismissal of feminism. You have a long credibility hill yet to climb, and yanking item after item from the MRA douchebag playbook scores you no points in that regard. Ikanreed (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what? To hell with you AND your hill. Who the fuck do you think you are? You want people to support your cause? I'd hope so, because you can't do it alone. Well, here's a start: stop acting like a huge dick and learn to be a decent human being. I am not dismissing feminism. I am sharing my view on why I personally identify as an egalitarian. Is that a problem for you? Is it a problem for you that I am an egalitarian and not a feminist? Too bad. Deal with it. God, you're one scorn-filled person. Parogar (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
No, seriously, if this is how a feminist behaves, then I fail to see what separates you from the MRA clowns. You're both hate-filled bigots. Parogar (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and thank you for proving my point. This is why feminism is unpopular. Because people like you are feminists. As long as people like you are feminists, feminism will continue to have a negative connotation. Because no one wants to put up or be subjected to this kind of bullshit. And I can only state so many times I'm not an MRA. I've stated it publicly in an article a few days ago that has already been read and "liked' thousands of times. So as far as I'm concerned, you're the one lacking in credibility. Show me yours. Where's your fucking credibility? Parogar (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Fuck it. I don't know why I thought I could find common ground with people here. You win. I'm leaving. This will be my last post on RationalWiki -- at least ON this website, if not ABOUT it. One of you (I forgot who) mentioned before that you seem to have a pattern of having people come here, get into it with some of the regulars, and then quit. Well, here's a question.
You ever think the problem might be YOU? Surely if the same shit is happening over and over then maybe it's not the case that every single person that comes here is a dick. Maybe, just maybe, you get people who are honestly looking to see if there's a way of reconciling and making progress, only to be chased away by extremists on a website that's supposed to be for people who are rational? Has that truly never come up as a thought by anyone here?
I could have been a very good ally to feminists. I could have done my part to spread the message to a considerable number of people, most of them female. But I won't. Instead, I'll spread the message of how feminism is for nasty, bitter, unkind people.
I know the world sucks. Believe me, I get it. We live in a shitty world. But you know what's not going to make it better? Acting like some fucking blow-hard whose asshole is so tight that when they fart only dolphins can hear it.
If feminists are so tired of having a negative image, then try to avoid behaving this way around people who are not feminists. But if you don't. If you decide "Fuck him!" and continue on this way, then don't act surprised when people find Feminism to be the most annoying word of the year 2014, and when every other article ABOUT feminism is, "Why does feminism have such a bad image?" What, does this surprise you? Does it baffle you? It shouldn't.
People have a natural tendancy to sense extremism where it exists. And the way some of (not all) you behave is almost entirely similar to the way creationists behave.
Thus, in conclusion, I get it: the world sucks. But you can either bitch and whine and moan and make everyone hate you, or you can wipe that sneer off your lips and make yourself presentable. Because nothing will change without support. And you're not going to get any of it when you act like complete bitches. Goodbye, and fuck you too. Parogar (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you leave having such a negative image of feminism, though some of these expressions you use kinda make me doubt how sincerely you were considering being a "good ally to feminism" to begin with. :/ 141.134.75.236 01:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, somebody certainly has a high opinion of himself. Parogar, you came to this site with nothing but negativity, dictating that various longstanding articles should be deleted etc. What kind of welcome were you expecting? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I want to reinforce that point, it's called feminism because women were (and often still are) refused agency based on their gender. Again, Parogar, perspective is important --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, here's a perspective you might not have considered yet, the perspective of the average person out on the street. A lot of the terms and meanings that seem routine to feminists (including the definition of gender itself) can seem arcane to your average person on the street who may have heard of feminism a few times in passing. It is very likely nowadays to ask someone of their opinion on feminism and just get "oh, I dunno, can't we just be egalitarians?" Speaking from personal experience there.
Now, the good attitude to take to deal with such situations would be to calmly explain the basics of what feminism is and why it's important and calmly clear up the misconceptions. The bad attitude to take is to yell at them with "oh, not another ignoramus who doesn't know how to properly use egalitarian!". Nullahnung (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, I think the problem is that there are not that many feminists. If every feminist had to explain this point every time that it came up then they would have no time to do anything else, hence the fatigue surrounding this issue --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
On that topic, my first exposure to "cis" was in some sci-fi book. When I first heard it in real life I knew what it meant, but I thought it was like "muggles", a made up word used to sound like you're from a cool book world. I know better now, though. MarmotHead (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You know what? You're still objectively wrong about a lot, parogar, the fact that you can't find common ground with me has a lot to do with you aping intolerant shits pretty repetitively and then becoming incredibly angry when someone says that you're doing so. "I'm egalitarian, not feminist" is irrational, of exactly the sort you're saying this article is. Not because of morality or right/wrong, but because it falls back onto basic reality denialism. It's to pretenend the last few thousand years of recorded human history didn't exist. You think you're coming in, bringing the light of rational even handedness while freely dismissing every constructed perspective that's not heterosexual white male. It's awful of you. Ikanreed (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately it is (or should be) the goal of every feminist to eventually be "egalitarian, not feminist". It is the reaching of this ideal situation that will enable us to be "egalitarian, not feminist", that feminism strives towards. I suspect the reason why many average people (I don't mean MRAs or whoever has experience with feminism more than in passing) immediately jump to "egalitarian, not feminist" is due to idealising this situation and wishing things to be so, sometimes to the point of believing that it already is so. Nullahnung (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
^(Also, if I just said something stupid with that, please don't yell at me, explain to me calmly where I went wrong.) Nullahnung (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I ain't gonna yell, but I think you should try not to mansplain what the goal of every feminist should be.
I'm also really sceptical of your comments about "egalitarian, not feminist". People self-identifying like this is a comparatively recent trend, and does imply a strong rejection of feminism (suggesting that feminism is not egalitarian). Certainly the people I've most often encountered saying things like this are either 1) MRAs, 2) men who don't self-identify as MRA but who do regurgitate a bunch of MRA talking points, or 3) women from the "I don't need feminism" camp. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, point taken, I guess. I should try not to mansplain about movements I am comparatively (compared to some of the more well-read folks on here anyway) new to.
As someone who is starting to read a bit about what feminism actually is on this wiki, I am wary of saying stupid things, hence me doubting myself above. I have many friends, however, in my generation who have heard of feminism only in passing. They always show disinterest or scepticism when I bring up feminism, whereas egalitarian (which I realise feminism is egalitarianism when applied to the present conditions in society) is the kind of vague general term for fairness that everybody immediately feels comfortable with. You may say they sound like 2) and 3), but I think that's just what can happen when you don't have feminism properly explained to you. Nullahnung (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and you know, I get that. I really do. But the whole "pinch your nose and turn your head" response people have to the only gender equality movement with any real history of making progress for kinda crappy fictional-media-driven reasons deserves a bit of a hostile response. Ikanreed (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The whole egalitarian thing mostly comes when men aren't able to listen to what women are saying when it comes to feminism and haven't read enough history to understand where the movement comes from. It's a kind of sexism in itself but one that is easily defeated by education and communication --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It affects women too, you know, the whole egalitarian thing, I can say from personal experience. There are many women who could benefit from such education and communication as well. Nullahnung (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally think it should be covered at least a little at school, we had Personal and Social Education when I was younger but it was very limited. Or it could be covered in History. Most of what I have learned was at University and that is sadly not free here --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the goal you described is certainly present in many minority rights movements. It basically expresses the desire to be treated as a 'normal' human being. Trans people, or people with a hearing impairment, for example, often just want to be treated as just another regular person, as opposed to "the transgender person" or "the deaf person wearing visible hearing aid." On the other side of the coin are people who embrace and celebrate their society-assigned identity in defiance of society's discrimination and prejudices towards them, like in gay pride parades for example. Both positions have merit and support the fight for more rights and better treatment of minorities, but sometimes there can be a clash between supporters of minority rights because of these two different approaches. One example that comes to mind is when Raven-Symone declared that she didn't want to be labeled "African-American" or "gay" because she didn't identify closely with her distant African heritage and didn't consider her sexual preferences as a prominent part of her identity, many said she was betraying her heritage and everything the civil rights movement had fought for etc. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, those are interesting points for sure and show that minority rights is a complex issue that on second thought cannot be boiled down to simple solutions. Nullahnung (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
By calling the movement feminism you are forced to directly engage with women's issues, that is why the "fem" is so effective. Even if feminism is being dismissed, the individual doing so still has to consider the movements aims and history, as well accept that women have earned a significant political influence under the banner. If it were called egalitarianism then it is likely that the focus would shift to men, even though that would be against the goals of a so-called egalitarian movement, because men are considered default in society. In fact, this is what happens in most "egalitarian" forums, hence why the term often seems interchangeable with MRA --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm yelling Parogar because he's coming in casually dismissing important historical struggles, and treating it like the rationalistically right way to behave. It's reallly awful, and lots of people do it. Everyone says something stupid sometimes. I do it a lot. That's never been the problem. The problem is that the way people barge in, go "How can you call yourselves rational when you're concerned with history and culture and society, which aren't science!" When people do that, it's almost invariably harmful to maintaining an informed, balanced, and rational perspective. And they always target dis-empowered groups when they do. Ikanreed (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
You win. I'm leaving. This will be my last post on RationalWiki. The popcorn is on the table right next to the fridge with the beer, help yourselves everyone:-)
To anyone with anything like a classical education, "cis" sounds like well - "cis". A Latin preposition, meaning "on this side" just like "trans" means "on the other side". Both have been adopted into English as prefixes. So? They're just words; which, as it happens, have precise technical meanings in organic chemistry.
Context makes content. "Cis" and "trans" are nothing more than descriptors, when applied to people. Use either as an insult, and despite my non-violent principles I'll be seriously tempted to punch you in the throat. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do I hear people saying "punch you in the throat" so often? It seems like a weird place to punch someone. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Give your larynx a firm tap with the side of your hand. All will become clear. Robledo (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What's with the false science?[edit]

I keep seeing an abundance of people saying that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence that gender is in the brain. This is a load of bullshit. Transgender people have shown differences on brain scans when compared to non-Trans. [1]

"MTF transsexuals show a significantly larger volume of regional gray matter in the right putamen compared to men. These findings provide new evidence that transsexualism is associated with distinct cerebral pattern, which supports the assumption that brain anatomy plays a role in gender identity." Parogar (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19341803
Gender identity is a matter of thought patterns. Thoughts happen in the brain, so of course the brain is involved. What what you describe as "an abundance of people" might have actually been arguing for is that an analysis of one's brain shouldn't be a requirement for accepting the way people identify. They feel the way they do, obviously these feelings are real. Postponing judgement until science can bring 100% clarity on why they feel that way is just plain disrespectful.
As for the study you cite, it seems pretty laughable to me. Trans women's brains look superficially similar to cisgender male brains? Wow, surprising, I was expecting that the brain had somehow been completely shielded from the rest of the body and developed completely identical to a cisgender female brain.</sarcasm> Also, just 30 people were used for comparison per gender? That's a ridiculously low number. You know, for a long time people thought people with autism had anatomically different brains, based on various small studies. Then suddenly someone does a decent study with a large number of people and guess what? Turns out those small studies may have been wrong all along. It's not because a scientist did a study that it's necessarily a good study, you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I forgot we're on RationalWiki, where peer-reviewed scientific studies published in respected, accredited journals are dismissed outright on the basis that they go against someone's personal feelings.— Unsigned, by: Parogar / talk / contribs 00:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's not because we're on a wiki with the word "rational" in it, that the people contributing to it are perfectly neutral, logical and unbiased. Every single person on this planet is biased in some way. But if you want to have calm, honest, rational discussion on these subjects, why don't you try to be less defensive and dismissive? And if you look at my comment again, I never claimed that the study's conclusions were necessarily false, just that its scale is so small that it's impossible to draw any definitive conclusions from it without further research. It's not a good study to back up your claim. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, it is rational to look at study findings carefully. If something happens in a sample, it's real for that sample. The rationality exhibited by the BoN above was trying to assess whether the sample was representative of the broader general population. The autism example is an excellent example. Another good example? The original Wakefield vaccine-autism study that, even if the data is legit is based on such a small sample and flawed design as to be only slightly better than a personal anecdote. MarmotHead (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/12/3132

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811909003176

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jcem.85.5.6564

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html Parogar (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Three cheers for Grammar! (but thank goodness for rational Wiki)[edit]

I am an IP editor, because I don't understand the need for privacy; in the context of a wiki, I mean. I only engage with topics where I have an active interest. I will never assume that it is the other person who is confused in what they think, I prefer to be selfish and keep all the confusion for myself. But I'm no pushover - if I think an article is wrong, I will jump straight in and edit it, with the best attempt I can muster at the time. I always accompany an edit with an explanation on the 'Talk' page. Cisgender is not an adjective, this is wrong. I am not going to try and explain why it is not an adjective, but it is self-evident (to me) that giving a grammar-label to the word <cisgender> does not advance the article one iota. The reason I won't explain, is that although I am clever enough to know what I know about grammar, I am NOT clever enough to document my knowledge. All the same, consider this;

'white' is an adjective, generally, but in the phrase "white people have it easy, man", the word white is not functioning as an adjective at all. Instead, <white people> is being used as a <label> for a broadly identifiable group. In grammar-speak, it might be a <compound collective noun> perhaps - but I don't really care about precise grammar terms, when the basic idea is clear. So, "cisgender people have it easy, man" presents <cisgender people> as a compound collective noun. The difference is that <white> is commonly used in other contexts (not just as a race label), whereas <cisgender> is only used as a label.

I have never been taught grammar, and I have never parsed a sentence in my life - but I have engaged in discussions on grammar websites with those who I will affectionately 'label' as <the grammar police>. Grammar is very interesting, but its only function is to be useful, in order to help people make themselves understood, IMHO. I am happy to be wrong, by the way, so please tell me why it is useful to open an article on <cisgender> by making a plain statement that it is an adjective? 82.32.112.174 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

In the phrase/sentence that you use as a example, "white" is actually being used as an adjective; to modify the noun "people". That is to say: "white people" is a standard adjective/noun pairing, not a compound noun. Daev (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)