Talk:Cisgender/Archive 1

Archives

---

• Current
• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce this word?

It is a soft C: sis-jen-der -Paige 17:25, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Origin

The term was created by Carl Buijs, a transsexual man from the Netherlands, in 1995.

I doubt very much that this is correct, because I am quite certain that I encountered the word in April 1995 in Germany, and I seriously doubt that it made it across the border in four months, especially since seveal people who had no other connection among themseves knew it, too. That makes it very unlikely in my mind that the date is correct. Not that I mind very much who coined it when, but we should check the source of that. It is not impossible after all that somebody else did coin it before, independantly, or that Buijs was just the first to print it. After all, everybody who has learned Latin or Chemistry would know the cis-trans pair of prefixes. Check for example: Usenet posting from 1996 -- AlexR 14:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I added an "unsourced" tag yesterday. I am tempted to Afd this article unless I see evidence that this neologism is independently popular. IF most cisgendered people have never heard the term cisgendered, then how common could this word be, really? Please show me some actual uses of this in an academic environment or else this word smacks of wikipedia:no original research. Me and my college buddies made up cool theories too, but they aren't encyclopedic. MPS 14:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Found a 1996 usnet posting[1] from Carl Buijs

Group - soc.support.transgendered
Topic - A new perspective on an old topic[2]
Posting # - 19
From: Carl Buijs - view profile
Date: Tues, Apr 16 1996 12:00 am
"...As for the origin; I just made it up..." FemVoice 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Found an 1994 usenet posting[3] from Dana Leland Defosse

Group - alt.transgendered
Topic - transgender research
Posting # - 1
From: Dana Leland Defosse
Date: Wed, May 25 1994 9:32 am
"... 2) I am trying to assess campus climates for the transgender community, both at my own institution and at other campuses. Any information regarding this subject would be tremendously helpful to this effort. Personal testimony, activism, organizations, experience of providers and human service workers, etc. Issues of interest are transphobia, hostility, general knowledge and understanding, attitudes of the queer community and cisgendered people, etc. I am interested in building coalitions and will share any info with others. ... University of Minnesota " FemVoice 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

even real women?

I have removed the word 'even' in front of 'real woman'. I can't see why this word is necessary, and it adds POV to the article. AlexR and many other transgender people may not like the phrase 'real woman', many people use it. There is no reason to insert a POV to condemn that phrase. There appear to be two solutions, just remove the word, or remove the word and explain, in a NPOV way why, in particular, why the phrase 'real woman' is considered particularly inappropriate by some people. jguk 06:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, the word is necessary, and perfectly NPOV. Your claim that it cannot be NPOV because so many people use it is ridiculous, because a lot of people use "nigger" and "faggot" and similar words, but that hardly makes them NPOV. It also does not need explaining since it is quite obvious - claiming that transwomen are not "real" women is a point of view which is not only quite unpolite, but also completely indefendable, because each end every point that is usually attributed to "real" (=cisgender) women either does not apply to all cisgender women, or to transwomen as well. That has been chewed through thoroughly, and if you, who, by his own admission, knows little about transgender issues, doubt that, that is your personal problem, but certainly not NPOV, because you think so. So kindy stop your vandalism, you are really getting on my nerves. -- AlexR 11:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have a strange interpretation of vandalism - something along the lines of 'if you write something I don't like, it's vandalism'. Anyway, you've put me off learning anything about transgender issues. And no doubt your uncompromising attitude to wording everything so that no viewpoint contrary to your own is expressed has put off, and will put off, many more. You seem to want to obliterate any phrase in a transgender article that implies that some people disagree with it, or take offence (and sometimes for good reasons, eg religious ones), and to intentionally include phrases that imply any questioning of a transgendered person's status is grossly unreasonable. You know full well the world isn't like that, and that there are many viewpoints alternative to your own. You may campaign for your views politically, but at least recognise that they are POV. Finally, however much you argue that people should not cause offence, I am fully aware that you are not adverse to causing offence yourself. Calling me a troll and then accusing me of launching a crusade, which you know is a loaded word found offensive by many, just because I disagree with some of your wording is as offensive as is unreasonable.jguk 22:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Funny, first you deal out offences, and then you complain when the replies are not polite enough. What do you expect? That trans-people are so thrilled by your alleged will to learn something about them that they don't mind if you insult them all the time? Uh, sorry, but no, not likely.

I am fully aware of viewpoints that deny transpeople the right to self-identification, self-expression and so on, up to the right to life itself. I am equally aware of positions that for example claim that black people are somehow inferior to white people, or Islam being inferior to Christianism (or plainly "wrong" and Christianism "right"), or that there is a Jewish conspiracy for world dominance and so on, but I sincerely doubt that anybody would get through with a request of changing the articles on black people, Islam, or Judaism into something that appeals to people holding such views. (And it's not for want of trying, either.) I don't see how this is any different; whether the reason for transphobia is allegedy religious or not; I have yet to see one argument against transpeople that does actually hold up to scrutiny.

As for the anti-trans-positions not being explicitly mentionend in most articles, well, nobody bothered writing much about them until now. And writing about them would mean to present this point of view as such, not inserting it into the article to make the article itself agreeing with this POV. Feel free to add such information, but remember, you ought to refrain from value judgements (like "good" religious reasons) nevertheless. -- AlexR 00:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By 'good' religious reasons, I meant for reasons consistent with someone's honestly and strongly held religious beliefs, I didn't mean to express an opinion on whether they are 'right' or not, or indeed, any opinion at all on them. Apologies for using an ambiguous word that could be, and was, misconstrued. jguk 06:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had at first removed "real woman" and "born woman" due to POV and inaccuracies, though this only highlights the nonsensicalness of the sentence in question. One can be biologically or genetically male or female but not be cisgender. Cisgender and transgender are about identification, not physicality. Dysprosia 06:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that, however, they are actually used, that is why they were listed, not because they make much sense or anything. Given that people are likly to encounter them when reading about the subject, I therefore propose reinserting them, maybe with an explanation why they are phasing out of use and/or should do so. I can't think right now of any better article to put this information in. Inaccurate words to describe non-transgender people with seems a bit counterintuitive ;-) -- AlexR 07:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me have a try, and I'll avoid the use of the terms above just for fun ;) Dysprosia 08:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did a few minor clarifications:

• Added a "probably" in the first sentence, see above for reason.
• Changed "Many transsexual communities" to "Many (particularly transsexual) communities" because while it is by now mostly ts communities, there are some non-ts-tg communities using those, too.
• has not "yet" gained - because that might change
• changed "biological" because the argument against that would be "well, but you were not born that way". Also, that is the counterargument I heard most often.
• changed "genetically" because a transwoman is not genetically a women, no way to deny that, unless in some very specific IS cases.) However, it is IS that lets that argument fall down.
• Clarified "born", too.

I have another problem with the following sentence - I really do not see what "cisgender" has in any way to do with reclaiming words like "nigger" or "queer". The word never was "reclaimed", and neither, for that matter, were transgender and transsexual, so what is this sentence doing there?

And I do not like the last sentence, either - "Cissies" "Cissen" (German) and "Cispeople" are all words I have heard actually used, so I don't quite see where the joke is, and where the "if" comes from. Or is that because in English it sounds like "sissies"? It is still used, sometimes, at least when the context is clear. -- AlexR 11:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but "real" seems like the problematic word here to me, because people can have different ideas of what "real" women are. Some might read it as "people born female," some might read it as "people born female who identify as female," and others might read it as "anyone who identifies as female." So I'd say rephrasing the whole phrase might be the simplest and clearest change to make. 132.162.81.146 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

One Question

Removed the following addition by an IP here:

One question which must be asked in studies of cissexuality: does being cisgendered involve an active desire to be of the gender that one has been assigned, or is it merely a passive acquiesence, in which the gender one has been assigned is accepted as is, being neither actively desired or actively opposed.

This does not quite make sense. How can a desire to be be active or passive? What is the supposed difference here? And has anybody ever asked that question before? Because if not, I doubt the WP is the place to ask it. -- AlexR 06:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense and seems relevant to me but I think it was worded badly. I expect that you could replace "active desire" with "conscious desire", and replace "passive acquiescence" with "unconscious acceptance". Some people consciously feel lucky to have their minds and bodies in accord with the norm whereas others may not be able to imagine how it could be any other way. Cutelyaware (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"hate speech"

Can someone please explain this?

The origination and use of cisgender can be compared to the reclamation of profane words and hate speech, such as nigger and queer.

How do they compare? "Cisgender" people are not "reclaiming" this word for themselves, are they? Rather, this is a word much more likely to be use by transgender people to describe those who aren't, and a more logical comparison is with use of "cracker" by black people or "breeder" etc. by gay people. —Ashley Y 06:47, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Well, the reclaim part does need some explainig (by whoever put it in), but you cannot compare "cisgender" to "breeder" - that would rather be like "straight" or "heterosexual", which are not meant to be insulting or derogatory, either. -- AlexR 06:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose "breeder" is a bit more derogatory, but I think there's a connection with usage: cisgender people themselves tend not to use the word, and probably still wouldn't even if more of us had heard of it. —Ashley Y 08:56, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

That would depend, I guess - if people need to explain that concept, there is, I think, no reason not to use that word - just as with "heterosexual". Of course, a lot of people would use "normal" or similar, but that hardly means that "heterosexual" (or cisgender) is an irrelevant word. -- AlexR 14:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cisgender, as I understand it, originated in the trans community to refer to people who are not trans; people identifying as the gender they match genetically or anatomically; I consede that this is not the same for people who are intersexed as their genetics and anatomy are different; and most of the time, I do hear cisgender with a derogatory "us verses them" tendency to it, but it is something between breeder and straight with regard to the feeling behind it; Womyn2me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.10 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear or think of using "cisgendered" as a derogatory term. I find it quite useful in differentiating between cis and trans gendered people in a neutral way. As the article points out, cis-trans are Latin prefix derivatives. Trans is in quite common usage, cis less so, but both are still in my mind neutral and I would feel sad to think that a cisgendered person would be offended by my use of the term, or that it would imply "us vs. them." I would also expect a cisgendered person to use the term less frequently than a transgendered person, as the purpose of the term is to differentiate between their much more common group of people and the relatively rare transgendered group. The alternative seems to be something along the line of differentiating between "normal" people and "transgendered" people, which seems to me to be more offensive as it implies that transpeople are therefore abnormal. The term cisgender breaks away from terms that would imply us vs. them by creating a neutral term in relation to the term transgender. Sedaja (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

biological/genetic

I find this sentence dubious:

Cisgender can be used in place of less accurate terms such as biological or genetic male or female since transgender people are also "biological" (rather than made from some non-biological material), while the "genetic" argument fails when one considers the genetic variations present in intersex people.

Clearly "biological male" (noun phrase) is meant in the sense of "biologically male" (adjective phrase), not someone who is separately "biological" (adjective) and "male" (adjective). Secondly, "genetic male" may or may not include intersex people but it seems to me at least as definitive as "cisgender". —Ashley Y 11:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion; the people who came up with this term, and those who use it, however, think otherwise. Of course, you are technically right about the first phrase; this, however, is probably the most common explanation one usualy hears when one asks why "biological (fe)male" is not the expression of choice. As for the "genetic" - if a phrase does not cover intersex people, it is useless in this regard. And furthermore, both "biological (fe)male" and "genetic (fe)male" can be understood to include transwomen (or transmen respectively), but a word was needed that specifically excluded them. (Not to mention the still unanswered question whether transgender has or hasn't a biological and/or genetic component, too, which would make both terms even more meaningless.) -- AlexR 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue is there is no real easy way to determine what is biologically male or female, or whether transgender people (especially an individual transgender person) fits in either one of these binary categories or is better included in the category intersex.

That is, what is 'biological (fe)male-ness' determined by? Genetics doesn't give you a definite answer, as there women with XY genotypes who have AIS. Is it the external genitalia? The hormonal milieu? The presence or absence of the HY antigen? The gonads? Secondary sex characteristics? To be honest, probably the best 'biological' definition of male or female that works across the spectrum of variety in nature is male = “makes small gametes” and female = “makes large gametes.” Of course that is clearly not the way in which the word was meant.

So what is the problem with using the term 'biological male' to describe transgender women (and vice versa)?

1) Well first off, it is not terribly respectful of the transgender person's right to self-identify. It buys into the idea that 'realness' is in one's biology and that a transgender woman is actually a biological (real) man. (This is to do with the latent rather than manifest meaning of the term. That is, while the definition means one thing, the common usage of the term and the way it is applied here implies another.)

2) Second it is probable that many people who are transgender represent a very subtle form of intersexuality. (If nothing else the brain – which is a sex dimorphic organ – having a sexed state that is incongruent with other physical characteristics. There is also some good evidence that even before hormones transgender men resemble an anthropomorphic middle between the female and male average, etc.) The more and more we learn about sex, gender, and developmental physiology, the more we realize that sex is less of a binary and more of a spectrum.

3) Thirdly if you are arguing that using biological male is somehow scientifically more valid or precise way of saying 'a male who is not transgendered' (which is what we are trying to do) that actually works less well than saying cis-gendered. That is, by saying 'biological male' (or 'legally male' – my other hated term) you are making implications that you may not intend to make. To a biologist in the field, 'biologically male' means “makes small gametes.” To a layman, 'biologically male' means “has a penis and testicles, makes testosterone, has XY chromosomes, and (if adult) has male secondary characteristics.” So if you use that term, not only does it not mean what you really meant to say, but it has different meanings to different people. Cis-gender just works a little better, I am coming to believe. Its like heterosexuality wasn't defined until we labeled people with same sex desire as homosexual. That is, the characteristic that the majority possess is not labeled as anything but 'normal' until you see people who vary from that norm. Then when the people who are vary from the norm are labeled (whether homosexual or transgender, the larger majority is labeled in reference to that – i.e. heterosexual and cisgender.) Nick

I find the entire paragraph highly POV and have removed it. Personally I identify as "coherently male", someone whose self-image, body and gametes all cohere to a single sex, and rather reject terms foisted upon me by transgender people (whose self-description "transgender" I respect). —Ashley Y 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's probably better to mark a POVy paragraph as such, include some of what the opposing camp has to say, and make sure that both sides of the issue are voiced. I rewrote the paragraph trying to do that. Feel free to edit it to include what you believe, but it seems that several users believe it belongs here. Also, if you do include an opposing opinion, try to include a reference. I took out the needs-to-cite-sources tag on this edit, but if there's anything in there about cisgender being offensive, that's probably not represented in my sources. Dave 01:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to include "coherently" as a term cisgender is prefered over the reasoning for that preferance is that the antonym of "coherent" is "incoherent" which is derogatory due to it's psychological conotation. Further "coherent" is intrinsically innacurate, since "coherent" only applies to connections ad logos (from logic) not connections ad antiquitatum (from tradition) or ad populum (from popularity) which can be shown in clothing expectations. But that argument over word meanings is pure semantics.

I disagree, Ashley. I am a biological male transwoman. The term biological male (or female) has no reference to gender, but only to sex. Cisgender specifies that one is referring to gender that is congruent with sex, while biological sex may or may not be congruent with gender. Sedaja (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I am adding the sourcing tag back in. right now, google search on "cisgender" [4] turns up meager sources. Perhaps a google search on "cisgendered" turns up more sources[5], but I many of them are mirrors of wikipedia or blog sites. I really feel that the term cisgendered is a rare neologism. Please provide academic or other prominent sources for the usage of this word or I will AfD it. MPS 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I referenced Transgender Roadmap in my edit last night. That's a fairly prominent site among trans web resources. Dave 21:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is accurate and has sources. Even though it's not a commonly used word, I don't see any reason to delete it. Tom 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Trans-inclusive communities"

That doesn't mean like towns where trans people are fully accepted. It means communities like the LGBT community, the trans community, etc. Dave 19:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes

* you changed "biological" but the rebuttal would be that the dominant opinion in the psychological community is that gender identity disorder (GID) is indeed a congenital condition as is supported by evidence of subtle neuro-physical varriance coorelating with gender identified behaviors, and numerous personal accounts.

First of all, kindly, in the future, put your comments on the bottom of the page, and sign them with --~~~~. Putting them under a 2-year-old debate is not a good idea; in this case, nobody knows whom you are refering to with "you".

Secondly, you misunderstand that -- people are not opposed against "biological (wo)man" because they see GID necessarily as a psychological disorder (although there is neither proof that it is not nor would that in any way demean transpeople), but because the opposite of "biological" would be what? "Non-biological"? "Plastic"? "Artificial"? But obviously transpeople are just as biological as cispeople.

* you changed "genetically" but the rebuttal is that woman is not commonly used to denote an XX genotype, but rather a set of social behaviors which in common vernacular include other genotypes even if one disregards the XY genotype entirely. Further it can be argued that genetic etiology is one of the few theories on the etiology of GID that hasn't been counter indicated by some findings. It can thus be claimed that a transwoman is a woman and her womanhood was caused by her genetic makeup from the day she was born, which while semanticly unpopular, is seemingly accurate given the choosen set of group boundries.

A theory of a genetic origin has not been disprooved, but there is nothing to proove it, either. Hence that can not be claimed. And the reason "genetic" would not work anyway are those intersex people whose genetic make-up is neither XX nor XY. -- AlexR 09:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Has the mathpunny word association "ciswoman" is to "real woman" as "transwoman" is to "complex woman" spread at all or is that merely a regional quirk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.15.143 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ciswoman and cisman

During the last few days, I have been made aware of the term cisgender and I have searched google for occurrences of the word. I find the word to be out in cyberspace used as a term to proceed man or woman. For example cisgendered man or cisgendered woman. At the same time, I also had the chance to look for the words cisman and ciswoman. I find that if they do exist at all, it is in signature lines or comments and not in conjunction with cisgender or cisgendered.

This has let me to believe that ciswoman and cisman (also a surname for men in India) although not figments of the imagination, are definitely neologisms. And the use of them lessens the validity of the term cisgender.

Bullshit, as you know. How could those words lessen the validity of the term? And who cares if a word is also a surename somewhere on this planet? Obviously, there is a need for words describing non-trans people, and if we have "transman" we may just as well have "transwoman".

It is my belief that these two words were added in the main article to justify a false point that ciswoman and woman are interchangeable. The same point was trying to be made for cisman and man. Since everything I have read indicates that this is not the case, but instead the correct usage should be cisgendered woman and cisgendered man, I would like to petition this group to have the incorrect information removed from this article. I understand that I am allowed to remove the line and be bold, but I refrain from doing so as to not start an edit war.

This is not incorrect information. It is merely your attempt to finally be allowed to imply that transwoman are not "women". Which why you also constantly lie about me being the one who considers "(wo)man" and "(cis)woman" to be interchangable, which they are obviouly not. You are the one who claims that one can describe non-trans women with plain woman, hence implying that transwomen are not women.

My, this is exhausting silliness. Do the phrases "red-haired women" or "Egyptian Women" imply that neither red-haired women or Egyptian women are not women? Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.220.2 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been told to me that cisman and ciswoman are the same as cisgender since they redirect to cisgender . I believe that this is totally wrong. cisman and ciswoman are not the same as cisgender but they redirect to cisgender without an explanation in "cisgender" to what they are or how they should be used. Since the only term that is vaguely out of the realm of neologisms is cisgender and it can still be considered to be nearly a neologism by the un-sourced speculation as to when it was named (1995). Adding ciswoman and cisman will lessen the claims that cisgendered is not a neologism and invalidates the work done here to gain some acceptance of the word since even a cursory search with a search engine shows that cisman and ciswoman do not exist in the cyberworld. And in the cyberworld, you have a link that defines cisgendered as an obscure term with no links that define ciswoman or cisman. Leaving them in wold require that a {{fact}} be placed in the article to have them sourced, since the existing sources do not cover there use. FemVoice 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly sticking to the truth here, are you? As usual. First, you whine that the words don't turn up, and then when they are added you whine some more. Not that it was necessary, because everybody who has read this article would be able to figure out those words.

Also, kindly stop throwing around the word "neologism" as if it were an argument -- new words are coined all the time, and as long as WP is not just the first place where it turns up, they are perfectly legit here. -- AlexR 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that cisgendered, cisman, and ciswoman are all neologisms - and what's wrong with that? I'm trangendered, I'm a transwoman. They're just specific terms that clarify communication, using a Latin derivative for a neutral connotation. Sedaja (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ciswoman and cisman are not in references

• Quoting from questionable articles found in Reference section of article

• • Now, there are two main groups of individuals out there in gender land. On the one hand, you have the cisgendered, who align their sex and gender as described above in what can be considered a traditional way (male/man - female/woman).

• • cisgendered [rare]: an obscure term for non-trans people, meaning that someone's body and gender identity match.

• • I thought that they'd been out in the sun too long. Now, 10 months later, I find myself among the people who take pity in the cisgendered, who lead such boring lives and experience no significant events in life that shape one's character

Would someone please take the time to look for a reference to cisman and ciswoman, so that I can understand that they are not made up words.

For Example:

1. cis PREP ACC [XXXCO] on/to this/near side of, short of; before, within (time);

1. trans PREP ACC [XXXCX] across, over; beyond; on the other side; (only local relations);

So, if I coined a word 'cissex' - that would mean on the same side of or near to. So as a woman, I would like sex with ... on/ near side of ... other woman - so 'cissex' means I like other women!

I am being serious - mea magni interest - desine querellarum and give me a real definition that is sourced

LOGICALLY:

• Trans-sexual - is somethat has changed there sex. Fact!
• Cis - means .. on / to this / near side of, short of. Fact!

• • CONCLUSION: cis-sexual is someone that is on this side of sex or that has not changed their sex. That is not the definition that is presented in cisgender.

• • SINCE: cis-sexual links to cis-gender. cisgender means that you are of the same gender.

• • • CONCLUSION: If I am in a cis-sexual relationship, I like woman.

Please note: All of the references are questionable and the burden is on editor who made the edits to provide reputable, reliable, third-party sources

FemVoice 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== "* Trans-sexual - is somethat has changed there sex. Fact!" Not a fact. Reread the article, and Transgender too if you must. 87.114.26.47 08:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

cis trans uses of word

Can you imagine hearing a near-side-of-man say that he was in a trans-sex relationship.

My friend said he was cis-sexual relationship. He thought for a moment and then said, "No, I mean... I am in a trans-sexual relationship" He is celibate now.

A cis-gender was walking down the street looking at the trans-gender and wanted to know if they would go out with them.

Oh, wait... ah...

A cis-gender was walking down the steet looking at the cis-gender and wanted to know if they would go out with them.

See what comes of mixing Latin with English.

FemVoice 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone talk about being in a *trans*gender relationship? What on earth are you trying to say? 87.114.26.47 08:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence required

Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. "

- - - - - The terms ciswoman or cisman could be used analogously to transwoman and transman, though ciswoman and cisman are used less often than cisgender. - - - - -

Please cite usage of ciswoman and cisman

FemVoice 10:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reluctant at first, but after being unable to find any use of ciswoman on Google (except as somebody's username on a Web forum) and any usage of cisman that doesn't refer to someone with that last name, I agree. I don't even know of a print source that uses cisgender, so certainly I don't know of any that would mention the terms ciswoman and cisman. The article should not mention these terms without a citation of a source that actually uses them. Catamorphism 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Google must have been broke, I find it, and not just as a username. Obviously, the two of you, if there is indeed two of you, are on an escalating crusade. First, you complain that it is not in this article, and insult and vandalize in FV, then I put it in here, and then you descend on this article. Can't the two of you (if there is two of you) get on people's nerves elsewhere? Obviously, I will revert. Oh, and I won't bother answering your rants and lies (Google) any more, either. -- AlexR 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to a Web site that is available on Google that shows use of "cisman" and "ciswoman" and not just as usernames or as someone's last name? Also, please remember WP:CIVIL. Catamorphism 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An acceptable reference would start with a http and have a definition. "Please cite a source to ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." As per Wikipedia:Citing_sources# Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed I am removing text. As an editor, and not a political activist I ask that you honor the intent of Wikipedia as outlined in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

FemVoice 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

I've filed a mediation request about the cisman/ciswoman issue here. Catamorphism 19:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence Requested

Removed the following from the main article.

"" Cisgender was probably named by Carl Buijs, a transsexual man from the Netherlands, in 1995. ""

Reasoning - No proof that Cisgender was probably or actually named by Carl Buijs in the year 1995 or any other year. The term may have been used by Carl, but there is nothing that proves that Carl coined the word in 1995 or any other year in Cisgender#References.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. "

I could say that Stacey Maxwell used cisgender' before Carl. Or that Dana Leland Defosse used cisgendered in 1994, before sited reference to Carl.

After extensive research, and writing the owners of the specified web pages in the Cisgender#References, I am asking that the attribution of cisgender by Carl Buijs in the year 1995 be proven.

Until the proof is provided, I am removing suspected false information.

FemVoice 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you cannot proove it is false, either, you are a bit prematur with removing the infomation. Hence, obviously, another revert. The proper thing to do, which you ought to know with your alleged readings of policy, is to mark it with {{fact}} -- AlexR 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As I noted below, the statement is false. The original article asserted that the term "cisgender" was invented in 1995. In the Usenet post I linked to below, from 1994, "cisgender" was used. Catamorphism 06:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FemVoice is correct in this case -- "cisgender" was used in a Usenet post by Dana Leland Defosse in May 1994, on alt.transgendered. Thus, the term must have been coined in 1994 at the latest, and it's still not clear who originally coined it. Catamorphism 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Reference per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources# Reliability of online sources

Quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources# Reliability of online sources - - - - Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. - - - - Highlighting added.

After extensive research, I am removing from the references section The Mirror Cracked by Carl Buijs because it is actually just a posting from usenet [- ddb7f1329d4021c4] added to a personal web page. Although it does reference the word cisgender it is being excluded because it is in fact a usenet posting and as such of no real relevance to the article. FemVoice 23:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also original research, because the source given (invalid as a reliable source though it is) does not say, "the first use of 'cisgender' was...". So it's a novel interpretation of an already-unreliable source. Looking at the past few days of edits, I'm disturbed by AlexR's reverts. AlexR, are you aware that "rvv" stands for "reverting vandalism"? If an editor suspects that unsourced or poorly-sourced info is false, they can remove it from an article. That's at WP:V. It's official policy, and it's nowhere remotely near vandalism. --Allen 06:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that those two stooges did delete information constantly, RVV is a perfectly applicable edit summary. Especially in view of the fact that they have been harassing me for quite a while now. I also wonder how the fact that a source is a usenet posting somehow does show that the word is invalid. It might not be the NYT, but unless FemVoice (but not FemManners) has reason to assume that it is fake, it is a nice and very early reference. Oh, and exactly how is it supposed to be "original research"? I think some people try to use that for everything they have not heard yet, but where exactly is the "research" part here? And if it has been used since the 1990s, it is not "original", either.

Oh, and I may be sick and tired of this constant harassment and vandalism -- but you won't get through with it. EOD -- AlexR 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Citation needed"? "Epithet?"

Why do any of these sentences need citations?

Some transgender people hope that the use of the word cisgender will increase mainstream acceptance and eventually remove the taboos.[citation needed] Others point out that the term heterosexual is very widely used but seems to have done little for the gay rights movement.[citation needed]

These are 1)obvious, and 2)factual merely by my saying so. If you want to cite it saying "!Hazel! on wikipedia agrees, along with X, Y, and Z persons," go ahead. But... which taboos? That sentence doesn't add very much and should be struck. Really, the hope is that the term will de-naturalize cis-privilege, which is a different hope entirely and deserves to go into the article somewhere.

1&2) Obvious and factual they may be, but for it to be said that some transgendered would indicate that you can say who - well who are the some who are saying it? It needs a citation as to who the 'some' are. Striking the sentence may be an option. I would prefer more concrete information regarding the usage, instead of vague inferences of some and others as they may be true, but do not say who said them.FemVoice 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Many (particularly transsexual-inclusive) communities use the term non-transsexual or non-trans, perhaps because the more scientific-sounding term "cisgendered" has not yet gained popularity or widespread usage in everyday English. Other groups consider it inappropriate to define any group by what they are not.[citation needed]

1)That parenthetical needs to be changed to read "trans-inclusive". Transsexual only covers a small portion of the community.

2)"in everyday English"? Whose everyday English? It has gained popularity and widespread usage within specific communities, including my "everyday English". How about "outside of trans communities" instead? Otherwise, we run the risk of essentially saying that the oppressive dominant-culture use of language is 'normal' and 'everyday' whereas the rest of us are not.

3)No citation is needed for the last sentence.

4)The last sentence is confusing. How about "Others, believing it inappropriate to define any group by what they are not, feel it is important to use "cis" rather than "non-trans".

1) many is also a weasel word - it does not say 'who' said it and is a general statement that does nothing. The fact that there is no citation on this means that we do not know what the authority exists for this information. It took some serious investigation to find a posting on Google: groups that even indicated Cisgender is a made up word that has a small following. I am still debating how to document this word and doing research - the problem is that there is so little out there, that is not a mirror of Wikipedia. 2) Since the word has not even made it to a dictionary, would you considered it used in everyday English? Since there is now a citation from publications that have peer review indicates that it, a small group is using the word and gives some validity other than random uses on the Usenet groups. 3) A citation is needed for the last sentence - when you say other groups, you do not show where this is being said. On the other hand, which groups said it - It could be anyone when you say other. 4) still the same problem with others in that you may as well say anyone or someone - they are still not concrete and have little if any validity. Moreover, if I quoted Hazel said’’, then I need to validate that Hazel has the authority to say what the word should be. Otherwise, it is just personal opinion. FemVoice 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence may actually need a source to work as it stands, but it still it's obvious: "Along with the less commonly used term cissexual, the idea of cisgender originated as a way to shift the focus off of a marginalized group, by defining not only the minority group but also the majority.[citation needed]"

It is obvious? I am trying to understand... hmmm... Let me defer to the experts, and in this case the usenet article [6] that says These cis* words are slow to catch on, probably because they denote concepts which are felt so normal and obvious to the public that "cisgendered" means little else than "not transgendered" (whereas, for example, "heterosexual" means "liking the opposite sex" rather than just "not homosexual"; see the difference?). Since there is little to really say that it has been used to shift the focus off of marginalized groups, it really does need a citation. Carl said I just kept running into the problem of what to call non-T*people in various discussions, and one day it just hit me: non-trans = cis. Therefore, Cisgendered., so that does not fit with what is being said, and as such it could be argued that it should be removed as it is not true and not what Carl said for an intent. FemVoice 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the following sentence is an unproblematic edit:

"Along with the less commonly used term cissexual, the terms "cis" and "cisgendered" have been popularized as a way to shift the focus off of a marginalized group, by defining not only the minority group but also the majority."

I personally popularize this term with that purpose.

? (smiling) Can you please get it published somewhere else than here. Popular, it is not - cisgender is more of a Neologisms than something that is 'popular'. Although it would be nice if it was popularized. FemVoice 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The word is rarely used and thus, it is not often used to self-identify. Because so few people who are described by this term use it to self-identify, it can be thought of as an epithet. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=30285271 This is out of line. While I do support the right of folks to self-identify, calling "cis" an epithet because it's primarily an other-identifier ignores the operations of power that put other terms on people's lips in the first place. "Cis" has no negative connotation, unless saying that the gender of a cisperson is no more valid than the gender of a transperson is an insult--the implication of the sentence. I move that it be struck, entirely.

Strictly speaking, an epithet need not be derogatory, but the term is commonly used as a simple synonym for term of abuse or slur. Epithet can be used to characterize a person or thing, such as rosy-fingered in rosy-fingered dawn or the Great in Catherine the Great. Here it may well be thought of as an epithet, since the person who it would be said about may not think it as not neutral. Overall I agree with your statement that it is out of line as did Ashley Y [7] - The word was placed in the article by Dmlandfair [8] - and it was placed back in on [9]. When I look, I agree that the word is not used to self-identify. As a transexual, I self Identify - because the gatekeepers insist. As a cisgender I do not self identify. I am so confused... I will think about that, but I agree, epitat is strong... And again, it has not been sourced. Maybe it should be said As a hapax legomenon, it is not often used by people to self-identify. Maybe it should just be considered a nonce word? FemVoice 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a humorous line about "cissies" in here. While I don't think it's really appropriate to call cispeople "cissies," I think it's a great way of making the pronounciation accessible to people, and I'd kind of like it to return.

Finally, one of the opening defining sentences enforces cis-privilege: That is, it provides a name for a gender identity or performance in a gender role that society considers to match or be appropriate for one's sex.[1]

it validates our society's coercive sex assignment, leaving unexamined the concept of sex-as-determined-by-others-by-examining-evidence as opposed to sex-as-determined-by-oneself-to-best-suit-oneself; leaving unexamined the ways in which "sex", supposedly separate from social relations and categorizations, is used to socially categorize someone coercively. Therefore, I move the following change be made:

That is, it provides a name for a person whose determination of hir sex and/or gender is universally considered valid.

or, if we must make the change smaller, That is, it provides a name for a person whose sexual or gender identity/performance are considered to match society's determination of that person's sex or gender.

How about cisgender means non-transgender. Simple and what the originator of the word said was intended. FemVoice 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your logic seems to imply that you wouldn't mind being called "non-male" (assuming that's true). I think the argument being made is that we need to ask who gets to define which state is normative and which is the "other"? Cutelyaware (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

!Hazel! 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hazel, you seem to be new to Wikipedia. I'm going to put some links on your talk page to help aclimate you. Hopefully the information will be a good first step to helping you understand why the things you questioned are the way they are. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 1994 user of the term cisgender

I am the individual (Dana Leland Defosse) who used cisgender, as referred to in 1994 in the usenet posting.

For reasons discussed here and in the article, I have never liked the term non-transgender or any other term that couches persons other than transgendered as "normal", as these seem to reinforce the othering of being transgendered.

As a biologist, I simply used the prefix cis as the complement to that of trans. In the simplest interpretation, cis means on the same side and trans means across. Cis and trans are not just where something is, however; they extend to the realms of their respective effects. In the usage here (neologism, if you will), this would apply to the social and biologic constructions of gender and sex.

I think the use of cisgender also captures a subtle and nondualistic aspect of the issue at hand; cisgender reinforces and reflects itself, while transgender originates where cisgender begins but extends into a greater dimension by "crossing over". --Defo0008 04:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also coined cisgendered as a term around 1994 in publicity for the GLQSOC-L, the Gay, Lesbian, Queer Social Science listserv to describe those who move from one mode of masculinity or femininity to another. This usage never caught on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.116.127 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did someone hurt your feelings?

I don't get a couple things

1. Why are people upset that the article says (said?) that the word cisgender is not used in everyday english? If I take a word like "charas" and say that it isn't used in everyday American English, for example, THC addicts wouldn't say anything. There would be no protest. They wouldn't say that it should be: In America, the word "charas" is generally only used within the cannabis user community. Am I right? For better or worse, I am.

2. Why should "non-transgender" be offensive? If I live in a predominantly black country I could say "I'm one of a few non-blacks in the country." Or "In the past, Kazakhs made up less than 50% of the population of Kazakhstan; now, there are far fewer non-Kazakhs." Of course you can say that these are bad examples because in the first example, the blacks are the majority, and therefore it's normal to say "non-black" to refer to a cracker like myself, and this isn't true about the transgendered: they are not the majority. Okay, so cisgendered are the majority. Which means that "non-black" in Kenya is parallel to "non-cisgendered" in most of the world (all of the world?). But if I started referring to transgendered people as "non-cisgendered", I think they'd be more offended, or at the least they'd be confused. But still, saying "non-black" means that the blacks are the norm. Saying "non-Kazakh" means the Kazakhs are the norm. So we can come to the conclusion that saying "non-transgendered" implies that being "transgendered" is "normal". It can't imply the opposite.

chad 09:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

neologism

Where is the proper place to add the statement that cisgender is a neologism? Somebody appears to have put a lot of work into this article but it is incomplete without that statement.Trilobitealive 15:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the information in the first sentence, hopefully to add a bit of neutrality to the point of view. This word is actually an unstable neologism, with little evidence that it is used in the world at large, but I left that out in deference to the primary editors of this article. Regards, all. Trilobitealive 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

History

I changed the section to History and etymology for obvious reasons. I also moved this paragraph to the talk page.

Along with the less commonly used term cissexual, the idea of cisgender originated as a way to shift the focus off of a marginalized group, by defining not only the minority group but also the majority. This is based upon the hypothesis that categorizing everyone will illustrate a difference between equal alternatives, whereas singling out the minority group implies some deviance, immorality, or defect on the part of the labeled group. Some transgender people hope that the use of the word cisgender will increase mainstream acceptance and eventually remove the taboos. Others point out that the term heterosexual is very widely used but seems to have done little for the gay rights movement. However, prior to "cisgender", there was no standard word used to describe non-transgender people without the use of negative prefixes while still avoiding terms like "normal", "born" or "genetic" (women or men).

When the paragraph is rewritten to make the style more readable and to add good source references then re-posted I'd suggest adding a viewpoint discussion along the lines that there is serious concern that minority group use of of language stylisms which are considered nonstandard by the majority may actually stigmatize members of the group and retard their recognition as members of the greater society. Regards to all.Trilobitealive 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

LiveJournal

Why is it that some people seem to believe that LiveJournal is a reference suitable for an encyclopedia of all places? The comments sourced to LiveJournal may be valid, but referencing LiveJournal as a scholarly means of backing these comments up is hardly appropriate for a body of work that claims to be an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.242.20 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, much of the article is very poorly sourced. —Ashley Y 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New Source

There's a Facebook application that lets users define their gender/orientation/etc more than Facebook's default. It's not scholarly, but it does bring the terms ciswomen (and presumably) cismen into a wider audience. The link to it is here, but you need to be a Facebook user (which only requires an email address) to see it. I'll leave the rest of you to decide whether it belongs on the main page.72.208.59.203 12:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Usenet Post is not a Citation

The link to the usenet post does not verify that Dana Leland Defosse used the word first or if they used the word first they used it first on the usenet. The link only verifies that they used the used the word at that point. While it may be true that the post is the first usage of the word, it still needs to be verified. Neitherday 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Substantial edits

The edits I've made to the article were to reduce the language of agenda, the repetition and tautologies - unfortunately most of the text needed to be cut, so there's not much remaining, but hopefully the article is now clearer, less confused, and can be expanded with reputable sources. 194.112.32.101 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the edits were a good cleanup. I went back and tried to make sure that the definition was clear, as the original shortening by 194... was a tad convoluded to me. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the convolution has been fixed: the last two sentences of the re-wording are saying the same thing - "the match" of identity to biological sex - means the same as "gender"... existing as an assignment of two (monoistic) forms (male or female). I also think that calling on a "society" without being specific or quoting sources is crossing the line from neutrality towards the promotion of a minority opinion; it is essentially saying that people who hold a view contrary to "cisgender" are against transgender issues and language. Therefore, the members of the society, or a society in itself, must be cited. If this is not possible, then it will be removed.194.112.32.101 12:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Find a way to say that cisgender means male gender with biologically male people and female gender with biologically female people. Don't forget, though that intersex people are not biologically male or female. Thus transgender and cisgender do not apply to this population. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but I think you mean male gender identity with male sex, and female gender identity with female sex.

Also, intersex people are nearly all either male or female. Androgen Insensistivity Syndrome and Congenital Adrenal Hypoplasia are both associated with women. This is one reason the Intersex Society of North America do not like the term intersex, it makes it seem as though they fall "in between" male and female, which is not how most of their members "feel". It is dangerously close to discriminatory to suggest a man with "micro-penis" is somehow not fully male because of the size of his penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gender is a very general term covering identity, roles, erotic attractions, brain structure, and pre and post natal hormonal effects. The idea of cisgender is that expression of sexual dimorphism at the top-end gender identity levels is concordant with expression of sexual dimorphism at the lower biological levels, i.e. both expressions are on the same side of the spectrums of sexually dimorphic characteristics.

It is gender identity that is at stake in discussions of cis and transgender, rather than erotic preference, gender roles, or disorders of sexual development. Focus on identity avoids confusing the issue with the other factors.

In the internal dialogue of academic fields with specialist expertise in higher level social phenomena, gender serves as a broad catch-all term for a conflation of gender role, gender indentity and erotic preference. However, I would think, at Wiki we need to be more interdisciplinary, and use precise terminology where it exists. Alastair Haines 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point regarding "identity," as gender is truly nothing more than a socially-constructed identity construct...although help me see where in the ISNA website ISNA state that the association does not like the term "intersex." Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ISNA discuss it here. An excellent article is here. Note, particularly the article's comment regarding a common misperception: "Most people born with intersex conditions do view themselves as belonging to one binary sex or another. They simply see themselves as a man (or a woman) with a birth condition like any other."

It is also worth noting that gender identity is viewed by almost no-one as a "social construction". Some think it is established post-natally during the fist three years (e.g. Money), but the evidence for this is inconclusive. I'd love to see a quote from someone that they considered gender identity to be socially constructed, because they'd be rather an original thinker, and going against consensus and evidence.

There are plenty of ideological writers who continue to suggest gender roles and norms of sexual preference are socially constructed, however, these are becoming rarer as more and more studies show both cross-cultural universals and biological correlates to preferences men and women show over a range of different behaviours.

I think the late 20th century was a very lucky accident for us.

Science and academic communication were still sufficiently primative that we didn't know about cultural universals and hormonal and genetic sexual dimorphism. Just before such things were discovered, people committed to experimenting with roles differing to prior norms. Had we known then what we know now we probably would not have committed to experimenting with something likely to fail. Now however, just as we're discovering that our manipulation of social factors hasn't really changed dimorphic behaviour, we're also discovering the extent of the biological structuring that we've been trying to fight.

I think it's very important that Wiki document the theory of "social construction" of gender, because it is likely to be a unique period in the history of anthropology. A much more positive one than the "racial superiority" era, but just as ideological and ultimately unsubstatiated. Alastair Haines 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Correcting the lead

I like the "transexual aware" description of the usage of cisgender, and the definition is spot on. The "four gender" stuff is not strictly correct. There are only two gender identities, and only two physiological sexes. The point of trans and cis is to distinguish between people who "cross over" and those who don't. Strictly speaking it doesn't say any option is "correct" or "legitimate" or "normal". We can't count cis gendered people as two "genders", nor trans gendered people as two further "genders", because the whole point of trans-gender is starting physiologically at one of the binary options, then "crossing over" to the other. The starting and finishing options still count as two, trans/cis just refers to different methods of getting to those final points.

Even Fausto-Sterling doesn't describe transgender as a distinct gender category. Her alternative "genders" are actually alternative sexes, and refer explicitly to intersex conditions, hence she calls them "merms" and "ferms".

An analogy is gay men for example. Are they female because they are attracted to other men. No! The whole point is that it is man-man sexual attraction. It disrespects and invalidates man-man eroticism to reconstruct it as some kind of "feminine masculinity", which also doesn't really make sense when you stop to think about it. Nonetheless, gay men will still be called cissies, and they do sometimes choose to play with feminine gender roles.

With trans/cis the whole idea is based on a two sex/gender system -- locations M and F -- it is the movement (or absence) of crossing over that makes cis/trans. There are still only two locations, not four. Alastair Haines 23:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cisgender refers to those who are not crossing, nor in transition, yet are said to have sides (plural), implying a model of some kind with surfaces greater than one. But how many sides are there? and what things do they refer to; sex, gender, spirit, assignments from God? And to whom does the model refer?.. only the cisgendered? The problem I have with describing this concept is that the people (who are prescribed as cisgendered) may function without discrimination towards their own inner experience of sex, their gender identity, or conceive of their self as a necessarily gender-complex phenomena. Therefore, I'm thinking that the model says more about the faith in a transgender culture than the truths about the people outside transgender society, or humankind as a whole. But, the question of what should be true is not the point here. The point is for describing the concept via sourced information, and it appears that a context exists in which "cisgender" is employed, but I think we need to clarify the theoretical sense (somehow).194.112.32.101 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already read through the gender article at Wiki, have a look at it. There is standard terminology developed by John Money, who was in favour of both homosexuality and transexuality as normal forms of human expression. Explaining typical gender patterns and atypical patterns with language that is neutral and precise was one of his main achievements. The way he did it was to invent terms to describe different aspects of sexuality -- from chromosomes all the way up to gender identity, gender roles and sexual preference. Although there are a few "in-betweenish" type situations, basically everything works of two sets of characteristics -- the typical cisgender pattern. Although he never used this language, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is a bit like being trans-sexed ... i.e. although XY (male) in chromosomes, everything else is female -- vagina, gender role, gender identity and erotic preference for men. Likewise a male homosexual could kind of be described as a trans-oriented person, male in everything except erotic preference, which "crosses over". But the important thing is transgender refers to people who "cross over" at the point of gender identity, usually gender role as well, and often erotic preference as well. A male to female transexual who wears dresses and is attracted to men is probably not best described as homosexual, she thinks of herself as female and adopts roles and partners just like typical women. On the other hand a gay man is a totally normal man in every way, physically and often in gender role and always in gender identity. He "crosses over" only by having an erotic preference for male partners.

Now, if you want to, you can disagree with Money's terminology (actually I don't think it's perfect, but I'll leave that out of discussion), but you will face the problem of being against the majority and in danger of causing confusion in an already confusing subject. If your concern is to follow what the sources say, Money's the one to follow. If your concern is to be inclusive of all possible groups, Money is again the one to follow.

However, you will find though that there will be feminists and gay lobbiests that will disagree with you (most will agree, but some have extreme views). For example, one famous feminist said Androgen Insensitive women are not "proper" women, which is a bit scandalous really, but she's famous, and she's not the only one to think this, although DSDs are not her area of expertise. Some extreme views suggest biology is never relevant in any sex or gender discussion. Others suggest there is a continuous line of gender from female to male, with most people falling somewhere in between. Still others suggest there's not even a line, there's just whatever we do, and it shouldn't be classified because that controls it. These last views were mainly suggested before we had the research available to us. They are ideological and theoretical and were exciting possibilities until we could actually look at brains in action, and genes and hormones. Even when genes don't work, they are still relevant as it turns out, which genes get "switched off" appears to influence brain processing.

Others may condemn you for being neutral about moral outrages. Believe it or not, Money once wrote an article for a paedophile journal (if I've spelled it correctly). Money certainly didn't support paedophilia, but he was more scientific and neutral in studying it than many. Some believe homosexuality is a moral outrage, others think that view is morally outrageous. Frankly, I don't care at one level. I think people have a right to support homosexuality and to condemn it. But no one has the right to stop us trying to understand homosexuality and find accurate language to talk about it. Frankly, without that, I can't see how pro-homosexuality is anything but bigotry, as much as anti-homosexuality can be. Surely we need to understand something before we can support or condemn. I'm like this so it's right is not an adequate argument. You're not like me so you're wrong, is also no argument.

Well, time to end this essay. I hope it's helpful. Please feel free to tear me apart. I've got dozens of sources only a few mouse clicks away to back what I say, so I'd welcome a chance to show 'em off. ;) Alastair Haines 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very comprehensive collection of information, which is difficult to argue against (and would probably take me weeks if not months to respond thoroughly with metaphysical relish), but nevertheless it's proved useful, particularly the references to AIS, John Money, and gender taxonomy.

Again I've rephrased the lead, and emphasized the context in which cisgender is used, but there remains something elusive about this concept which is interminably difficult to describe plainly.194.112.32.101 12:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are one heaps honest whatever-you-are, and perceptive. Glad you found some stuff to work with. Sorry for the info-overload.

I am only guessing, but I think one difficulty with this subject is that 90% of the debate is various interest groups arguing for recognition, or others arguing that important traditional values are undermined by such groups. The 10% that is scientific and objective analysis is normally not found in the popular press, except where there are statistics that back one side or another.

So far, at Wiki, when I've added info, I've stuck to the 10%. Gender is exceedingly personal (that's in the research too).

I don't think the terminology or public opinion have reached equilibrium yet. Maybe it will happen in your lifetime, if you are younger than me. Alastair Haines 13:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Many feminists

I changed "many feminists groups" in the first paragraph to "some groups" as many and feminist are just POV... Womyn2me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.10 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point with "many", but I don't see why we should avoid the word "feminist". How about "some feminist" as a compromise? Neitherday (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)