Talk:Cisgender/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 25 June 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Probably

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

Allow me to take a crack at it. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Who specifically do you mean? Me, The First (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Postmodernists. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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

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? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge

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

Utter junk

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? ħuman 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?

What? 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. Sophie^Wilder 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. 15:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Should we move this section to Brainstar? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Gender-normative

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. ^moral 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

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 (pester) 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 (is useful) 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

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. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks 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)