Talk:Cisgender

Elon 2

This is an extended justification for Special:Diff/1224910480.

Mathglot, citing Talk:Cisgender/Archive_7#Critiques argues that "consensus so far has been against including this". The same reason was given for Special:Diff/1168341849. The issue is that the consensus just doesn't work: you simply cannot use a 2015 article to deal with the July 2023 kerfuffle, it's not how sources work.

To make the content consistent with the source, there are only two possibilities: either you move the {{as of}} back to 2015, or you add a new source justifying the date. Dating it back is silly considering how much waves Musk made. The only logical thing, therefore, is to re-add information relating to the July 2023 Twitter incident.

There's also new development on this front (I realized this after the edit): the platform is apparently finally dishing out the suspensions it promised, just this week. I don't think there is a point in adding this update yet, since we are just saying "anti-woke [in a loose sense, I don't want to actually source this yet!] cisgender people don't like be called cis" here.

I should also bring in the old discussion participants, -sche, DanielRigal, and Historyday01. My understanding of what was achieved in the discussion seems to be that we all want to have some criticism from the conservative right without amplifying them too much. There's no consensus to ban mentioning what Twitter did, just that we don't want to repeat every thing Elon said verbatim. Neither I nor Strugglehouse was doing that.

Artoria2e5 🌉 06:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Back in June 2023 in the section you cite, I said, in part "There surely should be some focus on criticism from the conservative right, as you put in your previous comment, and ensure we aren't helping them lob their brickbats." I was referring to DanielRigal's comment that "we are here to cover notable criticism that already exists. I was agreeing with -sche that we were over-covering some minor but notable criticism while under-covering the most pervasive and most notable type, which is that from the conservative right." I think that is a fair comment now. In terms of the two edits you cite, in the first one there is the creation of a new section entitled "Rejection by cisgender people." While the link to The Advocate looks fine, the link to Forbes would have to go. Its already been stated on WP:FORBESCON, which summarizes existing consensus, that content written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight is "generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." I'm not sure whether Kim Elsesser's Forbes article meets that standard or not (can we say she is a subject-matter expert? Possibly? Not sure. Her bio on Forbes calls her a "gender bias expert"). The section would need more reliable sources in order to justify being a separate section, I would gather.

As for the other edit, whether it is used or not depends on whether we are considering the article to be part of the "culture section" or not, because articles outside that have unsure reliability, but articles within that section are "generally reliable", as noted on WP:RSPSS, which summarizes existing consensus on those sources. Since the article itself is within the Tech section, and is a relatively thin article (its only 11 paragraphs long), I'm not convinced it can be used in this sense. As such, I have to agree with Mathglot's edit in that instance. Historyday01 (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should cover the essence of conservative voices from the right, perhaps with a representative quote from someone typical of that POV, and preferably from someone with some background or expertise in the topic. That said, I find it aberrant and highly WP:UNDUE to have so much coverage of Musk and his twitter policy or reactions to it. It’s way too much attention to give to a billionaire tech entrepreneur who had nothing of interest to say and no background in gender issues before he bought a social media company. Meanwhile, here are results 490 to 500 (result page 50) for the scholar search for "term cisgender". We can cover Musk after we cover all of those, in due proportion to his chops on the subject, of course. There are *plenty* of conservative opinions to tap before his. P.S. Your point in citation age is well taken and we should update them. Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Cisgender was first coined in 1991

Cisgender was first coined in 1991, well before Dana, by a german Volkmar Sigusch and it should be mentioned more clearly:

"In a 1991 publication, Die Transsexuellen und unser nosomorpher Blick ("Transsexuals and our nosomorphic view"), Sigusch coined the term cissexual (zissexuell in German).[disputed – discuss] As an antonym to transsexual, cissexual refers to a person whose gender identity matches their sex."

source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkmar_Sigusch 86.33.86.16 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Cissexual is a seperate term from cisgender, so no, the term cisgender was not coined in 1991, that was when the term cissexual was coined. AT1738 (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)