Talk:cisgender

Brackets
It could be left just gender identity. הראש (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I have also heard this stressed on the first syllable, and with both the first and second syllables receiving equal stress. Compare Information_desk/2018/March. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of gender expression
Recently, Miki1787 added some information regarding gender expression to the definition of as an adjective. Shortly afterwards, פֿינצטערניש undid the edit with the description "I don't think this is accurate - we wouldn't say that a pretransition trans person was cis, or born cis". Not much later, Miki1787 again added information similar to that of the first edit to the page. It appears that there is a difference of opinion between Miki1787 and פֿינצטערניש that has not yet been resolved, so I've created this discussion in hopes of opening dialogue regarding the meaning of. Since Miki1787's edits don't contain reasons in the edit summaries, I am interested in hearing from Miki1787 first, specifically can you provide examples of writing where is used to refer to someone's gender expression? Looking forward from hearing from both of you. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've gone ahead and reverted Miki1787's edit once again. I agree with the argument that you made in your edit summary and couldn't find any evidence supporting the contrary. Making this post on here might have seemed unnecessary, and probably was, but I wanted to act on the assumption that Miki1787 was acting in good faith and to ask for further explanation in accordance with that. I also felt in a way bound by the idea revert rules from English Wikipedia and wanted to take the out of going to the talk page. That may seem silly, but 'twas what made sense. Anyways, thanks for all your diligent work! &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand! I don't know when, but at some point I turned mention notifications off, possibly by accident. I'm open to an example of when "cisgender" would be used of someone's gender expression, when such a description wouldn't simply be an error on the part of the speaker. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just chiming in to agree that "gender expression" is not (/should not be listed as) part of the definition. Most butch lesbians, even ones who wear suits etc, are cisgender women (some are trans women or non-binary), many "crossdressers" are cisgender men (men who were assigned male at birth and identify as men), most drag queens are cisgender men (some are cisgender women: "bio-queens" / "fake queens"; a few are trans women)... being "cisgender" is a matter of how one's gender identity relates to one's assigned gender/sex. (Intersex people, who infrequently use other labels like ipso-gender or ultergender, or people whose assignment at birth was done in a nonstandard way in bad faith like in the Reimer case may be exceptions.) Other dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, Lexico, and Cambridge, agree. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page
Please make all further comments on that page instead of here.

There is vandalism by anti-trans actors trying to add claims that the word cisgender is offensive, or that there is a commonly preferred alternative.

Those claims are unsourced, and are also clearly an attempt to push anti-trans views by adding biased views to the definition of a word.

Just because Elon Musk tweeted something doesn't mean his views should represent the whole of humanity. Cisgender is a scientific term that is widely used and has no basis to be considered a slur. HastinessParrot (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The person just reverted it again, saying there was a reference tag (the reference tag was broken, I even had a warning during the revert).
 * The reference tag only points to Elon Musk having tweeted something. The opinion of one person isn't enough to warrant the unvalidated and extremely biased claim that the word "cisgender" is offensive.
 * The person making those edits is clearly pushing a transphobic agenda and trying to vandalise this wiki article for their own political goals.
 * This article should be protected against those sudden edits triggered by the recent Elon Musk tweet. HastinessParrot (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @HastinessParrot There are articles in the links discussing the term, only one of them is a tweet from Elon Musk - second of all many do in fact find it offensive, even if most do not intend for it to be that way. As a descriptive dictionary it's not our job to tell people what they should or shouldn't find offensive, rather just note "many find this offensive". Third of all, I'm not a random vandal, I'm an admin seeing someone remove sources from a page. I believe you are making good faith edits, but Vininn126 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing offensive about a technical term that has been used for decades. The fact that those vandalism edits all suddenly appeared after Elon Musk tweeted is clear evidence that those edits were made to retroactively give weight to the views this individual pushes.
 * Being able to point to one celebrity is not enough evidence to prove that cis is an offensive term, let alone to warrant specifying that in the very definition of the word.
 * Again, this is a heavily politicised word and those edits are clearly being made to support anti-trans political views. HastinessParrot (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The changed made by Vininn126 should be reverted. Pikavangelist (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clearer because in retrospect this may have come off more confrontational than was intended: I think Vinnin126's page lock and reversion wound up reverting to a vandalized state, and that's what needs to be fixed. Pikavangelist (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the vandalism was already done before those reverts, I was just reverting it in the first place.
 * As far as I can tell from the confusing history. The original edits seem to be by @Adam9007, followed by someone removing them.
 * Then @Vininn126 reverted those edits. I reverted it again as this revert clearly added the vandalism back, and @Vininn126 kept reverting to restore the vandalism, and "protected" the page to leave the vandalism up.
 * The page now has a clearly extremely biased definition that doesn't reflect the reality of how the word cisgender is used. HastinessParrot (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just posting here to try to make more people aware that people have come back with rogue edits again and re-added the anti trans propaganda HastinessParrot (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, few people actually consider the term offensive, per se. Rather, they object to it because they prefer to see themselves as "normal", and dislike the use of terminology that explicitly validates trans people. Admittedly, there are some who dislike the term because of 's existence as a derogatory variant; however, literally any neutral descriptor can become insulting if you modify it enough.
 * Aside from that, there's also the fact that plenty of words can be considered offensive if you ask the right people. Some believe that the word is racist because of a popular folk etymology claiming that it's actually a reference to black people being lynched. Others, meanwhile, claim that  is a slur – either because it supposedly implies LGBT people are "bent", or because they think straight people should simply be called "normal". If you know where to look, you can even find neo-Nazis who (disingenuously) claim that  and  are slurs referring to white people. Should these entries also receive the  label?
 * The word is a perfectly neutral term in both etymology and usage; regardless of what some may claim, there is nothing supporting the notion that it's intended to denigrate non-transgender people. Binarystep (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "few people" isn't "no one", it's a small portion of the population, and hence we have adverbs such as "not typically", however, if a group of people described with a term feel it's offensive, then it is. Vininn126 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Except we don't find it offensive as a group, and the sources that claim we do are poor quality at best. You have one article about Elon Musk calling it offensive (when he's a notorious troll), and the other is from a website explicitly listed over on Wikipedia as "generally unreliable". Pikavangelist (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally the Metro article goes on to argue those people should not feel offended so it doesn't even support the argument being made Furbybrain (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Telling them they shouldn't doesn't mean that we should exclude the information that many people feel it's offensive. Vininn126 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then should we also add the label to, , , , , and ? It certainly wouldn't take long to find examples of people being offended by those terms. Binarystep (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes would probably be the best adverb in this situation. Vininn126 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On top of that, I strongly question why it would need to be added so prominently in the page and definition.
 * Yes, some anti-trans hate groups consider it offensive. Why are we supposed to include the thoughts of tiny fringe extremist groups in a dictionary definition?
 * Do we ask the KKK for their opinion when writing definitions related to racism?
 * Those edits trying to frame "cisgender" as a slur need to be removed. The person who originally made them should be warned, and @Vininn126 who is clearly pushing an anti-trans agenda by aggressively insisting they stay to the point of locking the article should also be stopped from editing further.
 * This page is clearly being used to help an anti-trans disinformation campaign. HastinessParrot (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read anything I've said? Or are you blinded by the concept I might be anti LGBTQ? (I'm not, actually). Please read the above. Vininn126 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're kind of coming across that way, though. Or at least coming across as incredibly determined to defend a framing that has literally no reliable sources just because someone might be offended by the word "cisgender". Pikavangelist (talk) Pikavangelist (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only a weak framing that has no reliable sources, but also a harmful one. And when it comes to the harm caused by disinformation against vulnerable minorities, we can find a lot of sources if needed.
 * The harm caused by including this is much greater than whatever supposed need of correctness of including those details, which don't even warrant being added in the first place regardless of the harmful consequences.
 * Maybe it's just me but I don't believe we should change dictionary definitions every time Elon Musk tweets. HastinessParrot (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How can I come across the wrong way if you never asked me my opinion? Vininn126 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase "actions speak louder than words" comes to mind. I'm trying to assume good faith on your part, but the current framing of the definition does not appear to reflect a neutral point of view as defined at WP:NPOV (a definition, I will point out, is explicitly linked at Policies_and_guidelines) and you seem to giving undue weight to a small group that, frankly, is not known for arguing in good faith. Pikavangelist (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have had no problem if the edit suggested by Binarystep was made. Vininn126 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Which edit do you mean? You're the one who reverted all attempts to remove the vandalism, gave me a warning, and locked the page.
 * You specifically ensured the vandalism would stay on the page and that no one could fix it, so I don't understand what you mean. HastinessParrot (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page! Vininn126 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did. Binarystep hasn't suggested any edits to this page that I can see, other than the "remove the 'sometimes offensive'" that I thought you were saying no to. Pikavangelist (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just one last note in case an admin that isn't biased against trans people comes to see this, here's a reminder that the edits framing cisgender as offensive didn't exist until literally today, just because Elon Musk made a tweet, and that the person who has kept reverting edits that tried to remove the vandalism seems to clearly have a personal reason to do so.
 * I think it's a very dangerous precedent that the article was now locked for being "too much in media" while still actually keeping the vandalism that happened after said word was "too much in media" is a clear indication of the bias of the people moderating this space. HastinessParrot (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that the same page on Wikipedia has clearly reached consensus that people coming in opportunistically coming on the article to push anti-trans biased statement was vandalism.
 * If even the Wikipedia article about cisgender considers mention of this offers nothing useful and advertises Elon Musk's views, why does it have to be included in a literal dictionary definition?
 * Why does the dictionary definition of cisgender have to include Elon Musk's views? HastinessParrot (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, please revert the recent additions referring to cisgender as sometimes "offensive". Sources do not typically call "cisgender" offensive. See:, , , , etc, etc. The fact that you can find one source saying it's sometimes offensive does not mean much. According to Vox, "white people really hate being called 'white people'" but we're not going to add "sometimes offensive" to white. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don't really know who even can remove those additions, as admins have decided to lock the page and stop anyone from deleting the additions (which were only made today by a new account but apparently absolutely need to be protected). I think Wiktionary has essentially just taken the official stance that cisgender is an offensive word because Elon Musk said so.
 * There isn't any report system that I know of to escalate this, and the only one I tried to use got me yelled at. HastinessParrot (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Regardless of the merits, screaming "vandalism" and reporting admins as vandals is a good way to get your arguments dismissed as a hypersensitive kneejerk reaction. As someone who patrols new edits a lot, I can tell you that content removal combined with over-the-top edit summaries raises all kinds of red flags. This dispute involves some legitimate issues about context labels (they can be interpreted as saying that people should be offended, rather than that they merely are) that should be (calmly) discussed somewhere like the Beer parlour or the Tea room. I find 's approach to be much more persuasive- you should consider adopting it.
 * As said elsewhere, this is a content dispute. The discussion should center on whether the content is correct, not on the motivation of the people who added it and definitely not on the people who responded to your actions. As for the issue itself, I think a better way to handle this is like we do at niggardly, another term that some people find offensive for questionable reasons- don't use the label, but neutrally explain the situation in usage notes. I don't have time right now to start a TR or BP discussion right now, but I hope someone will. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I calmly removed the vandalising edits. Until the same person reverted those edits twice. Then I had to figure out how to report people for vandalism, because I don't edit wikipedia often, and the process is extremely unclear. I found a page that told me to make a thread in that other page, so I did.
 * Like I mentioned in another reply, the Wikipedia version of this page clearly came to a consensus about not promoting hateful ideology in the article. But on this one, one person power-tripping decided to stop multiple people from removing vandalism, and locked the article, leaving us no choice.
 * Finally, and I'm sure you'll call this hypersensitive, I think it's very easy to criticise people's tone when you're not the target of constant disinformation campaigns. Regardless, I thought this website was about factual information, and not about judging who is right based on their tone?
 * This isn't just a theoritical discussion about semantics. The definition used here can be used for politically motivated reasons against trans people. Leaving this vandalism edit (which, again, wasn't present until yesterday, and is already a kneejerk reaction to Elon Musk tweeting) is enabling targeted anti-trans propaganda.
 * If you don't want trans people to "scream vandalism", then don't put them in a situation where they have to beg for anti-trans disinformation to be removed. HastinessParrot (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I dropped a discussion in BP. Like I said in my post, I would have gone to WT:RFVE given the cited sources for the term's offensiveness but that's not really possible when the page is protected. --Pikavangelist (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Beer Parlour discussion reference here is Beer parlour/2023/June. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I vote to remove "sometimes offensive" as well. This strikes me as undue weight (though I don't know if Wiktionary uses that particular policy) given to a fringe interpretation. Judging from the existing sources, the term is rarely interpreted as offensive by the listener, and even more rarely intended that way by the speaker. The Metro article doesn't even give any specific example of why it's supposed to be offensive, it just holds a hypothetical conversation with a person who might find it so. Pink News at least gives a concrete example: James Esses got mobbed on Twitter, and the term "cis" was used several times. IMO, that latter situation doesn't mean the term was offensive; it just proves that any word can be used in a hostile manner depending on context. Player 03 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also in support of removing the mention of "sometimes offensive" before the definition, for the many very compelling reasons that have been cited by various people in this thread. I think that leaving a link to the relevant wikipedia article section in the Usage notes may be warranted. Categorille (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought we had reached decent consensus on an unbiased link to Wikipedia, but now that it's settled the same admin is back at trying to force edits in from sources considered unreliable
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/73568873 @Vininn126
 * Isn't the article supposed to be protected now? Was all this discussion of due process and talking before doing things a lie?
 * I'm sorry but the same admin who reverted people's changes 3 times and locked the article on a dangerously false version is still insisting to keep a source that many in this very discussion have agreed is bad.
 * What is happening here? HastinessParrot (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally even the edit message sounds like a tantrum:
 * "Adding first reference until 1) people agree if it should be 2) people add to the APPROPRIATE thread and actually discuss the topic"
 * How do we stop this power trip? This admin is playing with a page that can be used by political bad actors against a vulnerable group. HastinessParrot (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In this thread alone multiple admins and editors have asked for the thread to be moved, only to be ignored. That is not a power trip. That is a bad faith accusation, furthermore you are completely ignoring the content of any of my messages including any other sources I mentioned in that thread - probably because you never actually checked them or didn't want to, possibly to push an agenda. You stopped contributing in that thread entirely when I wished to talk about it further. Vininn126 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what thread should be moved where, or how, or what that has to do with me HastinessParrot (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favour of getting rid of the "Sometime Offensive" statement currently in the text of the article per Binarystep above. Any term can be used in a way that riles people up, but that doesn't make it inherently offensive on its own. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Like with WP articles on events where it's easier to wait a week and prune ==Reactions== then rather than fighting over them in the heat of the moment, I suspect it'll be easier to revise this into a better shape in ~a week when the news cycle passes. As when some people recently argued that describing white people as "white" was derogatory, and we didn't feed that trolling, there are situations where something is not actually "offensive" in the way we use that label, but a few people claim to find it offensive for bad-faith reasons (Equinox also makes this point, although I think he and I may have different ideas of which situations those are), and Wiktionary is certainly capable of discerning when situations are different (good- vs bad-faith, etc) and treating them differently. In this case, the usage notes as written appear to conflate a number of dissimilar critiques, towards a conclusion of "this is offensive!" that most of the critiques of this term don't support. There are already a fair few sources (more reliable than a Metro piece!) which discuss the avenues of critique used in the Wikipedia article, and I suspect this week may produce more. My suggestion would be that we drop the label, or replace it with "see usage notes", and then do a better job in the usage notes of distinguishing different critiques, e.g. intersex people saying "this works for most people but doesn't map on us so well, so some of us use terms like [...] for ourselves instead" is not the same as "this is offensive", and is not the same as "celebrity famous for transphobia/racism/etc dislikes being describable as cis/white/etc, is nostalgic for being the unmarked default, more at 11". - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (Or what ‎Urszag did; that also works, ha.) - -sche (discuss) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I could get on board with "see usage notes" as a compromise. That feels closer to "no undue weight." Also, good point about lumping dissimilar criticisms. Player 03 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with all this.
 * I think if the article had been locked on its state prior to the original vandal edit from earlier today (the one that added the notion that it's offensive, and the very vague and weakly sourced claims that its use is controversial), it would be fine. It could then be made better.
 * The problem is that the vandalism got kept, and then locked into place. HastinessParrot (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's gone now. A three hour turnaround time isn't bad, all things considered. :) Player 03 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still being discussed in another thread. Vininn126 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahem, simply mentioning that some people, for whatever reason, may find this offensive (with sources to back the assertion up to boot!) does not make me a vandal! Disagreeing with the content and sources is one thing; vandalism is quite another. The Metro article says: 'There are people who believe the word cisgender is offensive, with some believing that it promotes binaries of what it means to be male or female.'. Well, there we have it; the fact that others do not find it offensive does not negate the fact that some do. And do you seriously believe that Elon Musk would declare the word a slur if it was never, ever used in an insulting manner? I very much doubt it. For the record, I don't consider the word offensive, but this is a dictionary; my personal feelings are irrelevant. The potential for offence has recently been all over the news; Wiktionary would not be doing its job if we were to just ignore it. Adam9007 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, your "source" has been explicitly listed by Wikipedia as unreliable. It's no better than an Elon Musk tweet, which seems to have been the impetus for your edit. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The first source is completely different. Everyone is acting as if the second source is the only one, it's not. Everyone, please see the conversation at the Information Desk - this really isn't the forum for this. Vininn126 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Adam9007 didn't cite the first source in the comment I was replying to, so I only dealt with the one he cited, Metro. Please read before replying. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Information Desk conversation referred to here is Information desk/2023/June. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Do we have a similar list here? Adam9007 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: "do you seriously believe that Elon Musk would declare the word a slur if it was never, ever used in an insulting manner?" Yes. Yes, of course. The man is a notorious bullshitter. He makes things up all the time, you walnut. What makes Musk an authority on linguistics of all things? (There: I used "walnut" in an insulting manner, so it is a slur now.) 87.182.230.169 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You will find people calling any word offensive. That doesn't mean their views should be platformed as part of a dictionary definition. Hope that clears it up. HastinessParrot (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That view, although still a minority, seems to be getting more and more widespread, which I think qualifies it for mention in a dictionary. Adam9007 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've noticed but someone edited the article and did leave a link to the bigger Wikipedia article which has a section on criticism of the usage of the word. I think this is a good way to deal with potential controveries while being clear.
 * The problem with the changes this whole thing is originally about is that they were extremely biased and clearly politically motivated. They were vague, weakly sourced, and didn't have important context. Claiming that the word cisgender is offensive without even balancing it with context is a very loaded claim.
 * It's very dangerous to uncritically platform views from known hate groups just because "some people believe this" without bigger wider context to inform people ot the actual facts.
 * Also, again, this is a dictionary definition. I don't understand why it needs to go to such lengths. Wikipedia is for in depth discussions, I don't understand why you and a few other people insist so much that we should platform Elon Musk's (konwn for his anti-trans views) on the definition of cisgender. What value does that add to the article, and what authority does he (or whoever wrote that Metro article) have on the subject?
 * The content that was added, and forced to be locked in by the admin that kept reverting changes, was honestly trash that should not be considered valid here.
 * I do have one idea of why some people keep insisting that we should platform those views though :) HastinessParrot (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Should the skin sense of white be called "sometimes offensive"? At least as many white people take offense to being called white as cis people take offense to being called cis. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The narrow sense of transgender was originally labelled as 'offensive'. And that narrow sense may be ideologically or scientifically inaccurate. But, to me, to be 'offensive' in an objective sense, some large number of persons needs to use the word impolitely in a way that reliably causes a part of society to be seriously shocked and angered. I haven't seen the offensive use of cisgender, nor of the narrow sense of transgender. But it's I guess possible that a large number of people could use these words impolitely such that another major part of society has an intense reaction. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Geographyinitiative See the thread to which this was moved (the link is at the top of this thread). Vininn126 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the sting could be taken out of the argument if either the label or the usage note specifies who object or are "offended" by (mostly social conservatives who are generally unsupportive of or hostile to LGBTQ emancipation to varying degrees). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  21:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Archived from WT:VIP

 * Politically motivated edits and locking of a page to push anti-trans views by controlling the definition of the word "cisgender" HastinessParrot (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There has been vandalism on the cisgender page with recent edits today happening in reaction to a tweet by Elon Musk. The vandalism is adding politically motivated claims pushing an anti-trans agenda by trying to frame the word cisgender as offensive, or that words like "gender-normative" and "nontransgender" are preferred. The word cisgender has been used for decades and having news media report on a tweet by Elon Musk isn't sufficient grounds to create this precedent.

I strongly believe those edits are politically motivated with the goal of giving weight to anti-trans claims that the word "cisgender" is a slur, and this page should be protected against it.

The user @Vininn126 has been making repeated edits cancelling all edits made by people who try to remove the disinformation, and has now locked the page against edits. HastinessParrot (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The fact that you believe there are people who have a strong preference against this word - not only that, but that there are enough to have one of our administrators be one - is proof of the information we give in our entry. Thadh (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's non offensive use is used more (that's the one I use), however I see people on the Internet very frequently freaking out at being called cis. Personally, I don't get it, but it's real and should be documented. Vininn126 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it means there is a politically motivated anti-trans disinformation campaign triggered by fans of Elon Musk who are trying to retroactively confirm what he said by editing the wiktionary article.
 * The definition of the word cisgender has no reason to include mention of celebrity controvery involving Elon Musk from literally only the last day. This page had no mention of "preferred term" of of cisgender being "sometimes offensive" before then. Vandals clearly came to edit the definition to give weight to their own biased views, not only that but specifically as a targeted campaign against trans people.
 * I hope admins take this seriously and protect this page, and related pages, against bad political actors using it for disinformation campaigns. HastinessParrot (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not only Elon Musk feeling offended by this term, people like Piers Morgan have also been advocating against it. Again, this doesn't say anything about the people using the term, it's simply warning that some people might potentially feel offended by this specific term. Thadh (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @HastinessParrot By including that, we are neither supporting nor disavowing that viewpoint, merely stating it exists. Vininn126 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Every view point possibly exists. You can find individuals who believe any word is offensive. There is no established pattern of cisgender being used as a slur or offensively. Cisgender is a common word that has been used for decades.
 * The fact that fringe anti-trans hate groups are running disinformation campaigns against trans people and trying to frame cisgender as a slur should be reason enough to be suspicious of sudden additions to the definition of this word.
 * The claim that cisgender is offensive is weak, and only supported by fringe sources often tied to hate groups that are politically motivated and want to harm trans people. HastinessParrot (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not as fringe as you think, sadly. While I disagree with it's usage, I don't use that viewpoint to hide the opposing side. Vininn126 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure you don't, given your edit and talk history I'm sure you have no political motivation in this. I 100% believe you.
 * It's irrelevant though, the facts discussed here and the talk page still stand. This edit is unwarranted, based on extremely weak sources, and politically biased. It shouldn't stay, regardless of your personal beliefs.
 * The fact that you insisted on stopping people from removing the vandalism multiple times and locked the page, on the other hand, is clearly motivated by something. HastinessParrot (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It not being used offensively is not the same as it not being taken offensively. What we're saying is "beware, some people might take offense", which is true - the amount of people who take this word as offensive is nowadays high enough for this to be an issue. Thadh (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So why aren't Zionist or atheist or fascist or communist or Democrat updated to include (sometimes offensive) because sometimes someone uses them as an insult? Your argument is being made in bad faith (no, I will not presume you are arguing in good faith when you clearly are not), because your behavior demonstrates a clear anti-trans bias. The only people who are offended by the use of the term "cisgender" are people who have a political motivation to be offended by the term "cisgender". Nothing more. The term is not and never has been offensive to people who don't dedicate their lives to actively harming minorities.
 * It's such a shame that Wiktionary is held to such a low standard compared to the other WikiMedia projects. 104.234.212.2 13:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't "vandalism". Stop spamming this page with a content dispute. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 14:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's not vandalism, how do you call someone adding politically motivated propaganda against a vulnerable minority on a dictionary definition to further their agenda?
 * And more importantly, how do we remove that vandalism when the person causing it locked the page? HastinessParrot (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is still a content dispute, not vandalism. If you don't stop flooding this page with spurious vandalism requests, the only option that will be left is to block you from editing this page. Take it to the entry's talk page or a centralized discussion forum. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise fascism was a "content dispute". I will stop replying on this thread now and obey your instructions. Thank you for your help, I am very grateful for you making this platform safe for vulnerable minorities and protected from exploitation by politically motivated bad actors. I'm truly sorry for bothering you, I understand now that anti-trans propaganda is spurious flooding and unimportant.
 * Sorry for having created this thread, it was not my intention to bother people. Have a nice day! HastinessParrot (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

}}

Is "cisgender" banned on Twitter?
I think that being banned from Twitter is arguably notable information (since there are millions of people on Twitter). But it looks like people are still tweeting the word with apparently no consequences. If this is just another case of Elon stirring shit up, I agree that it's pointless information for a usage note. Ioaxxere (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think a word being banned on a particular website warrants in-entry mention unless it has lexical relevance. For example, being popularised by certain MMOs banning the slang sense of  in the mid-2000s, or  and  emerging from 4chan implementing wordfilters on  and  around the same time.
 * Musk is absolutely being disingenous in deeming this a "slur". This term isn't offensive or derogatory by any reasonable measure. It's a descriptive adjective on par with, , or . There's no value judgment in the word. One can certainly find it used in disparaging or sardonic contexts along the lines of "shut up, cisgenders." But then can also find many instances of "shut up, billionaires." That doesn't make billionaire a slur. What Musk and his fellows find objectionable about cisgender is that it situates cisness alongside transness in the continuum of gender identity. They don't think we need labels for "normal." Only the "aberrant" needs to be linguistically taxonomied.
 * Take how Twitter under Musk hasn't just failed to curb anti-trans hate speech but deliberately gutted long-standing policy specifically to allow it. One would expect parity if this was simply about not applying unwanted labels to people. But Musk is content to allow Twitter to fill up with trolls spewing all manner of transphobic abuse while kneecapping remaining LGBT and ally users' ability to discuss gender and transphobia in any context. He doesn't want anyone calling him cis (which isn't an insult) but all his reply guys are free to hurl etc.
 * I commend your effort to create a sourced, neutral usage note, but 1) Save the Metro piece, these articles seem to be opinion pieces/interviews/quotes of individual people expressing their personal objections to this word. These do not strike me as sufficient to support "dictionary-voice" statements about this term's alleged controversy. 2) There aren't comparable usage notes at heterosexual or straight. This just seems like unnecessary verbiage to appease culture warriors and their latest fixation. In any case Elon Musk's personal opinions and/or Twitter policy are of little relevance to Wiktionary's mission. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't think it's actually banned, this is just another of Elon Musk's media stunts. HastinessParrot (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Article still platforming loaded anti-trans views after more suspicious edits
The current version of the article still contains quotes from clear anti-trans sources, including such gems as "sex is not assigned, it is observed and recorded at birth" in the references. Specifically, the same admin who locked the page to stop "edit warring" is still adding more links to clearly biased anti-trans sources.

Another person deleted some of them, including the Elon Musk ones, but at the moment the article still clearly contains a very biased list of references that have been forced in, despite the previous discussion above settling on linking to Wikipedia.

I believe the admins doing this are abusing their power to force their views in. I would have given the benefit of the doubt, but if you look at the post history there's a clear pattern of trying to force a bias that gives credence to the recent mediatic "cis is a slur" discourse.

I am not well versed on process and how to effectively stop admins from abusing rules and their power though, so all I can do is leave this message here and hope that someone will take care of this situation. HastinessParrot (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that the Wikipedia section linked doesn't even mention the "cis is a slur" viewpoint. Artoria2e5 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All those edits came on the very day that Elon Musk tweeted that "cis is a slur", and the person who origin ally added them was quoting Elon Musk.
 * The article doesn't have to literally say "cis is a slur" to implicitly support and give authority to this viewpoint HastinessParrot (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it The Advocate or Transgender Studies Quarterly which is more anti-trans? - TheDaveRoss  19:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Advocate quote is an opinion about the word "cis" and the gender binary. The quote from Transgender Studies Quarterly is an opinion about cis and normativity. These are discussions around the usage of the term, certainly, but neither imply that cis is "a disparaging insult or slight". The same can't be said for Mary Wright's quote also included on the page. Shendaras (talk) 19:12 26 June 2023 (UTC)

—I'm not the admin who locked the page. If you look at the other thread, you can see that I voted strong oppose to marking the term as offensive. I can't unlock the page but if you want to suggest a specific change (i.e. adding alternative viewpoints, including a different source) I can work them in.

Nowhere on this page is it claimed that cisgender is a slur either.

Alright, I'll try to find more sources like that one.

Ioaxxere (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh let me rephrase. Not "cis is a slur", but "cis is a label rejected by the non-identifying". Artoria2e5 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)