*"Also note many women consider "cis" to be an insult that eliminates womens experience as women, who've been identified as and identify as women from birth, and are happy and even proud to be women."* ...wha? On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net> wrote:

Whatever else "cis" is, it's not a scientific term. It's a buzzword that sounds scientific because it derives from the Latin, but in fact it's a coined term that is not used in science. Risker/Anne On 16 January 2015 at 16:33, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Whatever we want to that doesn't break WP policy or the klatsch's rules. I envision it along the lines of the WikiProject Women proposal <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women#Project_idea> at the IdeaLab. Lightbreather On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:06 PM, JJ Marr &lt;jjmarr(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 16 January 2015 at 17:13, Heather Walls &lt;hwalls(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Simply because two sociologists say it means X doesn't mean that there's any indication that term is widely accepted even with the academic field of sociology; in fact, the next paragraph of the lede of the article indicates it's only one of many terms that are used by various social science fields. And just to be clear, social science != science; they're two very different things. The "cis" prefix is most frequently used when there is a fairly equal division between two different presentations. Thus, using this prefix prefix inaccurately reflects the distribution of gender identities. Let's not kid ourselves, no matter what data are being presented, 70% or more of the human population *does* self-identify with the gender assigned at birth. (The whole first paragraph on the origin of the term is original research, but I'm not going to touch it with a 10-foot pole.) We would never even consider calling people who have two feet "cispedal" or people who have blood pressure in the normal range "cistensive". In fact, there's a word for those with blood pressure in the normal range: "normotensive". But it wouldn't look politically correct to call people who identify with their assigned birth gender as "normogender", which would be the linguistically correct prefix, because that encompasses the majority of people. [For the record, I'd never advocate the use of that term, either.] Let's just call women "women" or, if it's really felt that we need to be exclusive, "those who self-identify as women". Risker/Anne

It's tempting, but I'm not ready to make that leap yet for my purpose. I really want it for women only, which isn't quite the same as "not men." I'm leaning toward Anne's "those who self-identify as women." It was my first instinct, and that's usually the way to go. Lightbreather On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:40 PM, GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Well, yes.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism "In organic chemistry, cis/trans isomerism (also known as geometric isomerism) is a form of stereoisomerism describing the relative orientation of functional groups within a molecule." Gordo

Since I started a minor brouhaha on cisgender, I figured I should provide some examples of women (and feminists) who dislike the phrase. Frankly, I never have gotten a handle on what gender means and never use the phrase gender at all except in gender gap, only because "sex gap" obviously is not useable. I think sexual stereotypes - and the resultant imposed sexual roles, sexual discrimination, sexual abuse, etc. - are the problem; all this talk about gender confuses the issue. People who are born intersex may choose to use that phase or identify with one sex or the other. Those who state they are really individuals of the opposite sex trapped in the wrong body certainly can define themselves as transgenders or transsexuals. But trying to redefine all individuals (straight, gay/lesbian or bi) by whether or not they are transgender or cisgender is absurd. http://sarahditum.com/2014/04/21/notes-from-a-non-cis-woman/ http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of… http://bugbrennan.com/2012/12/12/cisterhood-is-powerful/ http://uppitybiscuit.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/do-not-call-me-cisgender-you-… http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378511/cis-ridiculous-christine-sisto http://bmgnedra.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/sscabdscab-reframing-the-conversat… http://glosswatch.com/2014/04/20/beauty-and-the-cis/ http://glosswatch.com/2014/04/24/9-reasons-why-cis-isnt-working/ http://bigboobutch.com/2013/09/16/cis-queerly-not-yours/

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Carol Moore dc &lt;carolmooredc(a)verizon.net&gt; wrote: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/being-called-cis-is-not-oppressive Best A. Mani Prof(Miss) A. Mani [Last_Name. First_Name Format] CU, ASL, AMS, ISRS, CLC, CMS HomePage: http://www.logicamani.in Blog: http://logicamani.blogspot.in/ sip:girlprofessor@ekiga.net

I hesitated to use the term, but it seemed to be shorthand for exactly what you just said, Sarah. At least that's how I meant it, and I didn't mean to suggest that it's scientific. Lightbreather On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Sarah Stierch &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

This was not a helpful or informative comment. I have unsubscribed Bohdan from the list. On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk &lt;base-w(a)yandex.ru&gt; wrote: -- Leigh Honeywell http://hypatia.ca @hypatiadotca