Talk:cissexual

RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023
The recently added second sense – how does it differ from the first one? I keep reading them over and over and I just can't wrap my head around it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think under the second definition it's possible to be both transgender and cissexual, although I don't fully understand what that means. There are some uses on Twitter that do distinguish cisgender and cissexual:, , , . These are hardly cherrypicked, it was easy to find them via Twitter search. I'm not sure they're all using it in the same way, though. 98.170.164.88 20:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, all. Please refer to the 'usage notes' I added, for clarification:
 * "Unlike 'cisgender', which refers to a gender identity that matches one's birth sex, may instead refer to the alignment of one's sexual identity, which may not coincide to their sex chromosomes (in the case of transsexuals), with their birth sex. For instance, while a trans-woman may biologically identify as female, despite having male sex chromosomes, a cissexual male both identifies as a biological male (someone with an XY chromosome), and in fact possesses this genetic information. In this sense, sex is characterized by reproductive role while gender is a set of behavioral and cultural traits to which a person belongs."
 * I'm completely open to wordsmithing / cleaning up this entry. In laymen's terms, what I'm saying is that someone who's cissexual both identifies with their biological sex and is literally their biological sex, unlike a transsexual who identifies with a biological sex other than the one they were born into. Cis-SEXUAL differs from cis-GENDER because the former pertains to biological, sexual identification, while the latter refers to behavioral/cultural, gender identification. In other words, sex is objective while gender is subjective. Hope that clears things up. Let me know if that didn't make any sense. —WbK Wordbookeeper


 * Sense 3 also needs cites (and improvement; what's "(prescriptive) Loosely..." trying to say?). I know people who ineptly say "cis" when they mean "straight", but sense 3 is more like the super straight fad/op people were trying to make happen. It's possible, since other -sexual terms like sapiosexual are attraction to whatever the prefix denotes, but only cites will tell if it actually exists... - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I found several tweets using or mentioning this definition (examples:, , , , and others that were similar), but I don't know if it has really caught on. A corresponding sense of "transsexual" may have a similar level of attestability (examples: , , ). 98.170.164.88 06:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Historically (maybe still today), some post-op trans people didn't identify as transsexual/transgender after surgery, as they considered they had aligned their sex and gender are were no longer anything, so it's plausible there may be cites where someone is (what would conventionally be regarded as) trans and also (post-op) cissexual... but the newly-added sense seems like the opposite of that, indeed it seems like trying to re-state sense 1 in such a way as to exclude that, if we assume that by "sexual identity" the writer meant not  but "identity as a certain sex". Finding uses that distinguish sense 2 from sense 1 seems hard and the distinction seems questionable. The tweets look to be using a different sense, to do with not changing your body / physical sex regardless of your identity as male/female/etc; the linked tweets by transiness.com make this clear, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @- -sche "Finding uses that distinguish sense 2 from sense 1 seems hard and the distinction seems questionable". Please see the references cited under sense two. All appear to be academic IMO, and seem to distinguish sense 2 from sense 1. Let me know if you disagree. —WbK Wordbookeeper


 * This looks like soapboaxing concealed beneath unnecessarily complicated wording. Seriously, no dictionary definition needs to include "gametic," not if it's seeking to afford readers understanding and clarity. This probably doesn't warrant a separate sense. It has every appearance of being the first definition filtered through a gender-critical lens. The usage note should go immediately.
 * I believe the subtle distinction between sexual vs gender identity, as seen between sense 1 and 2, is noteworthy and warrants a separate sense. As mentioned above, "cis-SEXUAL differs from cis-GENDER because the former pertains to biological, sexual identification, while the latter refers to behavioral/cultural, gender identification. In other words, sex is objective while gender is subjective". Again, I'm open to cleaning up the wording; I see how words like "gametic" might come across as pedantic. —WbK Wordbookeeper
 * For a hot second I thought this might be a poorly-worded version of a definition of cisgender/cissexual that includes intersex people. Basically, some intersex people do not discover their intersexuality until later in life, and identify and live as their while possessing "opposite" sex characteristic(s). It's thus possible to conceive of them as simultaneously cis and trans. This is an extant usage that may warrant its own sense (or at least a sub-sense). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In any case, this new definition is very unsatisfactorily phrased. "Loosely meant as attraction to people that identify as their biological sex." Loosely meant? It should define what the word is supposed to mean, e.g. "attracted to people who..." Equinox ◑ 12:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wiktionary Glossary defines loosley as "an imprecise use of words (wider, broader); short for loosely speaking". That seems applicable in this context. However, if you'd like to change this, go right ahead. As for attestation, one user "found several tweets using or mentioning this definition (examples:, , , , and others that were similar)". Similarly, "a corresponding sense of 'transsexual' may have a similar level of attestability (examples: , , )". Furthermore, I've got some more sources that I can contribute, but with the exception of the prefixal meaning of "cis-" and the suffixal meaning of "sexual", the rest of the references would be far less scholarly. Consequently, us editors would need to "come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks" as to whether or not these other sources "may also contribute towards attestation requirements". I'd argue yes, because first off, it appears we have over three sources. Moreover, as @-sche put it, "it's possible [to attest this sense], since other -sexual terms like sapiosexual are attraction to whatever the prefix denotes; this too is what I was mentioning above. That's my 50￠; let me know your thoughts. —WbK Wordbookeeper


 * @- -sche You said this rfv failed even though there's no final consensus. Sense two is clearly attested by multiple credible sources. For this reason I have undone your edits. Please see the references listed by the second sense. I only put three but there are surely more. If you'd like to merge sense one and two, here is my proposal:
 * "Having a gender or sexuate identity which matches one's birth sex; for example, identifying as male and having (been born with) male genitalia."
 * —WbK Wordbookeeper

RFV Failed, two tweets don't mean much. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)