The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. It seems like this discussion has resolved at least some confusion about how this topic is different than others. We should also expect more clarity on definitions from outside sources in the coming years. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Cisgenderism

Cisgenderism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three reasons for nomination in AfD:

• All of the sources I could find in my BEFORE and currently present in the article are WP:PRIMARY journal articles investigating the topic at hand.
• This article is a WP:CFORK of cisnormativity, trans erasure and lastly misgendering (per the original paper [1]). No secondary source clearly delineates cisnormativity and cisgenderism leading me to think that they're just WP:DICDEFs that are synonyms of each other (all mean biases towards cisgender).
• The only and main secondary source:

Ansara, Y. Gavriel; Berger, Israel. Cisgenderism. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Gemmy, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies. SAGE Publications; 2021. ISBN  978-1-5443-9381-0.

was co-written by the same person who invented the term for his masters thesis (making it likely a WP:NEOLOGISM). All sources were selected from very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), raising WP:NOTABILITY concerns. Such publications are WP:MILL research output and not been picked up by independent secondary sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Sexuality and gender, and Social science. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 16:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. All three of your claims prove inaccurate looking even just at the first source listed in the article. It's an encyclopedia article (not primary), it clearly and explicitly distinguishes cisgenderism from cisnormativity, and again, it's not primary. I also don't think your assessment of the sources that are journal articles is very accurate. Ansara and Hegarty (2012) I believe coined the term, so that one could arguably be considered primary in this context, but the rest are either wholly secondary (Lennon & Mistler, 2014), or contain significant secondary discussion on existing research on cisgenderism. WP:ROUTINE is a part of Wikipedia:Notability_(events), which obviously does not apply to this article, and I really don't understand how you equate research with press releases or acquisition news or "fireman saves cat" news. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 16:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Comment. You brought up what you consider an example of good source (2014 article), yet it is a study from the journal Transgender Studies Quarterly has an impact factor 0.68 and h-index of 8 ( https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/21100979259) both which are very low for the field of psychology. This goes in with this topic not being notable and just being a routine output of liberal arts researchers (which is a task they are required to do to stay financed, much like firemen are required to help rescue cats). Not mentioning that it is also WP:PRIMARY. That's why I think it should be deleted or merged to cisnormativity as an alternative to deletion. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  And journalists are required to write about the news, physicists are required to write about physics, and so on; should we also delete all articles that cite newspapers or physics journals? And by what criteria do you classify Lennon & Mistler (2014) as primary? --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  All the sourcing here does not fit WP:SCHOLARSHIP, in particular the points: Prefer secondary sources, Citation counts, Isolated studies and POV and peer review in journals. It is run-of-the mill research and does not support the existence of Cisgenderism as distinct from Cisnormativity. In addition, the first encyclopedia source you gave and the article is based upon was co-written by Ansara. Yet according to your comment, they have coined the term, so it cannot be considered independent from the subject. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  You still haven't specified how Lennon & Mistler (2014) is a primary source. Rather, you add more arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny. Here are the citation counts for those sources I could find them for:

• Ansara (2015): 46
• Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
• Rogers (2021): 17
• Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162

By the way of comparison, the Annual Review of Sociology, one of the most highly cited sociology journals, has an impact factor (average citations per article) of 10.5 [2]. You bring up "Isolated studies", but I have already said that of the articles cited, those that actually are studies include literature reviews in them, making them more than isolated studies. You have failed to substantiate what you mean when referring to "POV and peer review in journals". Are you saying that SAGE Publications, Psychology and Sexuality, Psychology of Women Section Review, Violence Against Women, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Transgender Studies Quarterly, Australasian Journal on Ageing, and Journal on Family Strengths all "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view"? --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 20:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• 3/4 of those sources:

• Ansara (2015): 46
• Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
• Rogers (2021): 17
• Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162

are by Gabriel Ansara, the one who coined the term in 2012 for his master thesis. So as well as being WP:PRIMARY (ie. not being "Reviews of Cisgenderism" or "Textbooks about Cisgenderism") they are also not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• "POV and peer review in journals" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives the examples of The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science, in other words, fringe sources.

The seminal paper for this subject Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008 (Ansara) states:

Note that ‘scientific objectivity’ has been used to obscure prejudicial ideologies focused on marginalised populations and that many scientists have critiqued ‘objectivity’ as a social construct that is fashioned from the subjective experiences of the researchers. See Crasnow; Danziger; Fairchild; Fernando, (2009); Jiménez-Domínguez; Spanier; and Stanley and Wise (esp. p. 174)

This is typical of what one would find in a WP:FRINGE publication. To not stick with calling it fringe, I read the paper further. In section 1.4, the purpose the paper is given as:

In the present study, we examined whether cisgenderism has characterised the language of scientific communication about children in psychology in the period since Parlee’s (1996).

So the only purpose of this study is grepping all the psych studies with misgendering keywords and yet it makes completely unrelated conclusions at the end like:

Where some researchers (e.g., Zucker et al., 2009) see mere semantics, others consider sexist language an abusive and destructive form of hate speech (e.g., Lillian, 2007). Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase. Indeed, even Parlee’s (1996) important criticism of cisgenderist language is limited by numerous instances of misgendering,7 an illustration that shifting the discourse is extremely difficult even for those engaged in critical analysis. Editors, peer reviewers, psychological researchers, mental health professionals and professional organisations all have ethical duties to address institutional cisgenderism, including cisgenderism that is institutionalised in scientific communication. Children’s self-definition and self-expression are not the only issues at stake. The moral integrity of psychology and its public image as an agent of the greater social good depends, in part, upon implementation of APA policy – which our current findings suggest has yet to impact how psychological scientists construct knowledge

How does "a frequency f of misgendering keywords" imply "Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase"?

This is bad research (if you cannot see why this is the case, answer the question: what can I take out of it?). Regardless, this CTRL+F study defines cisgenderism as either misgendering or pathologizing so gives yet another WP:CFORK. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 22:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a gish gallop. Instead of responding to the arguments I make, you just throw out more and more assertions. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 07:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• • It's also not accurate to say that cisgenderism is only discussed by a small circle of academics; searching for "cisgenderism" on EBSCOhost (available through the Wikipedia Library) turns up 278 results. I haven't surveyed them all yet; maybe I'll do so soon, but I think this shows that this is a pretty commonly used term. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 19:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    Independent secondary sources like [3] either use it as a synonym of transphobia, or define it in a way that is indistinguishable with cisnormativity or trans erasure.

    So it just reads like a WP:DICDEF to me. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 19:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    I'm talking about academic sources, not The Good Men Project®: The conversation no one else is having®. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 20:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Psychology. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Adequately sourced for an article on a sociological concept. Invoking WP:ROUTINE is beside the point; as noted above, that would be trying to apply a standard for news coverage to academic work, which just doesn't make sense. (Vast swaths of our mathematics, physics, and biology coverage could be disparaged as "routine": we don't ask that someone win the Fields Medal or the Nobel Prize before we write an article about their research topic.) It could be that after further editing, this material would make more sense as a section in a larger article, but this is not the forum to decide that. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merging an article into another article instead of deleting it outright, is definitively within the purview of Articles for Deletion. Merging is made very clear as an option to consider in this forum in the Guide to Deletion section titled Recommendations and outcomes. In the list of vote types presented there, it states: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)."    — The Transhumanist   08:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• In a brief search, I found scholarly sources discussing both cisgenderism and cisnormativity; e.g.

I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously, e.g. Rosenberg, Shoshana; Callander, Denton; Holt, Martin; Duck-Chong, Liz; Pony, Mish; Cornelisse, Vincent; Baradaran, Amir; Duncan, Dustin T.; Cook, Teddy (21 July 2021). "Cisgenderism and transphobia in sexual health care and associations with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: Findings from the Australian Trans & Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey". PLOS ONE. 16 (7): e0253589. Bibcode: 2021PLoSO..1653589R. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253589. ISSN  1932-6203. PMC  8294496. PMID  34288911. ("Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) is a form of stigma that denies, ignores, and marginalizes genders other than those that adhere to a fixed gender binary" citing Ansara YG, Hegarty P. Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Fem Psychol. 2014;24(2):259–70.) Overall, this seems to be a broad concept article, and based on available sources, keep seems supported at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) ..."

"I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously"

You say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity, which already has an article. Why wouldn't it be considered a WP:REDUNDANTFORK then? बिनोद थारू ( talk) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• To clarify, in my comment above, I pointed to what appears to be medical research literature (stating cisgenderism is "sometimes referred to as cisnormativity") that according to WP:NPOV, does not seem to have the same WP:WEIGHT as the sociological and psychological literature that appears to be available. This is why I think an application of this core content policy to both articles, along with further review of sources and discussion, can help develop the broad concepts.

Beccaynr ( talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

If you say they mean the same thing, then the consensus is to keep them on one page (delete, merge, or redirect this one).

This is a standard case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

As an additional clarification, I did not say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity; I added sources to my first comment above that discuss both concepts, and in my second comment above I added more sources, including a source that appears to use cisgenderism in its title as a broader concept that includes cisnormativity. As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged into the main article. For now, cisgenderism seems to be a distinct sociological/psychological concept that has gained traction in the research literature, so alternatives to deletion seem to be available. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles"

I am nominating for deletion since I noticed everything has already been merged to the other article. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Reluctant Keep -- At what point does a neologism become just a logism? This was clearly a neologism, but one that has started to appear in RS as shown both in the article and in the sources mentioned in the collapsed section above. As such, I feel that sources just barely establish WP:GNG beyond the neologistic nature of the word. As for the other point WP:BLUDGEONed above, I do not feel that it is a fork from cisnormativity. That term refers to the belief that cis is "the only normal", where this one refers to discriminatory behaviours based on that belief. I don't like the term (or the article), but it appears to just cross the line into an encyclopaedic subject. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment I thought that "cisgenderism" would refer to the status of being cisgender, just like "transgenderism" can refer to being transgender. I realize that the article clarifies this but I was confused reading the deletion discussion. ( t · c) buidhe 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article currently reads "Cisgenderism relies on the assumption that there are only two sex and gender categories, that gender is unchanging through life". The definition of "sex" says there are only two sexes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Sex explains that classification also. I clicked the reliable sources search at the top of the AFD, and don't see any reliable sources appearing. This article was made entirely by one user, who identifies as queer, non-binary, and trans. It reads like a personal essay. Dream Focus 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sex and gender are different concepts, e.g. see gender binary. Reading like a personal essay is arguably a surmountable issue. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Dream Focus I ask you strike your comment about Maddy from Celeste's identity - it's irrelevant to the discussion and we are supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. Additionally, I'm a little confused how the reliable sources search didn't return anything for you - checking the link to google scholar there were over 3,500 results - so I'd appreciate a clarification of your methodology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am not familiar with the term cisgenderism, but I do happen to know the synonym term cissexism which currently redirects to cisgenderism. My understanding is that cisnormativity is the assumption that people are cisgender, whereas cissexism is defined as a type of systemic discrimination towards transgender people, perpetrated by societies and not individuals. It can also be thought of as the difference between "sexists" and "sexism"; in the former there are individuals argued to cause harm, and in the latter there are systemic forces such as wage discrimination which no single or even small group of individuals is responsible for. At least, that is the definition for these terms to my best understanding.

I believe the term cissexism entered popular usage due to the 2007 book Whipping Girl, and there is now vast feminist literature on the term. If I had tPages of the same type on the same subjecto give a top three for independent significant coverage of the term cissexism, noting all the sources are independent of each other: [4] [5] [6]

My personal impression is that the term cissexism is in wider circulation than the term cisgenderism, eg. see [7] and [8]. Since they define their own concept and the etymology doesn't seem notable on its own to me, I think one should redirect to the other, but perhaps the other way around to what it is currently (ie. I would support having cisgenderism redirect to cissexism and treat sources using the terms interchangeably as long as they establish equivalent definitions in-text). Note the curious discussion at Talk:Cissexism#Merge which established merging of cisgenderism to transphobia, not cisgenderism as it redirects to currently. And, not to invoke WP:WHATABOUTX, but sources from the more well-developed transmisogyny article could be useful additions this article as the two terms are frequently discussed together. I also concur with XOR'easter that WP:ROUTINE is only relevant for news reporting and not academic coverage. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. Your answer does not cover:

• WP:PRIMARY "academic" essays being unfit to write an article especially when no mainstream secondary source has picked it up.
• Example of WP:DICDEF. Only mentions of cisgenderism are under multiple conflicting definitions. (half say "cisgenderism/transphobia" as in both are identical)
• I referred to WP:MILL in my nom yet you stuck with WP:ROUTINE.

Finally you are suggesting WP:OR by changing the name from "Cisgenderism" to "cissexism", since the sources were all cherrypicked for their use of "cisgenderism", not based on an existing concept covered in secondary sources.

By the current logic, we would have to WP:TNT the article to create a different high school essay around CTRL+Fed "cissexism" sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment – cisgenderism is distinct from cisnormativity, with the latter being a bias of perception and the former being a form of prejudice. While related, cisgenderism is not a subtopic of cisnormativity, but it is a subtopic of cisgender. So, if there is to be a merge, the latter is the article it should be merged into.
  
  That being said, the hurdle that needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO:
  
  "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."
  
  And...
  
  "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."    — The Transhumanist   08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep The relentless WP:BLUDGEONing and gish galloping on this subject led me to reexamine the sources. I have changed from a reluctant keep !vote (struck above) to a very solid Keep. Since the nominator apparently believes that every response must remove every objection, I'll try to do just that.

1. Journal articles are not always WP:PRIMARY sources, so that argument is moot. Worse, it is disingenuous in the extreme. The vast majority of RS are published in journals. A subject matter expert writing journal articles investigating the topic at hand is the soul and centre of WP:SECONDARY sourcing. As examples, I'd pick Boe & Baldwin, who tackle cisgenderism in family therapy [9]; Dalton, et al, who dissects coaching and managing people to (in part) avoid cisgenderism [10]; and Rogers, who looks at cisgenderism and hate crimes with secondary analysis of primary sources [11]. If you really want books instead of journals, I'd start with these: Ross explicitly discusses cisgenderism in relationship to homelessness and rehousing [12], just as Knott-Fayle & Peel do regarding qualitative research [13] and Knott-Fayle does solo regarding sports [14]. I am not suggesting that this is the end of the sourcing list, nor that they are the best sources; this is not my area of expertise. They are, however, solid and reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
2. This is not a content or POV fork off any subject. Cisnormativity is about a belief that "cis is the only normal", whereas cisgenderism is discriminatory behaviour or attitudes based on that belief. Those are separate subjects. Erasure is a wholly different phenomenon related to attempts to remove trans people from the conversation, or to ignore their existence entirely. Misgendering is not remotely related to cisgenderism at all.
3. The statement that there is only one secondary source in the article is false (see 1, above) and utterly irrelevant. The point of WP:BEFORE, which was obviously not done in this case, is that sources must exist, not that those sources must be in the article at the time of the AfD.
4. WP:NOTNEO is a weak argument in any AfD as there is no clear rule on what constitutes a neologism. Regardless, there is a substantial body of work very specifically about both the term and the concept (again, see cites in 1, above). As for the amusing statement that the article relies on a very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), did anyone even try to do a BEFORE search? gScholar comes back with hundreds of viable sources not authored by or with the Ansara that are both secondary and explanatory, and gBooks has even more.
5. WP:MILL is about run-of-the-mill news coverage. Trying to equate a discussion of cisgenderism to 'dog bites man' is just throwing every policy one can think of at the AfD wall and seeing if something sticks. If it were run of the mill, the individual events of cisgenderistic behaviour would be routine coverage and the concept, what this article is about, would be unquestionably encyclopaedic. This deletion argument literally makes the case for inclusion.

Overall, there is simply no good policy-based reason to delete this article, and it improves the encyclopaedia to include it. The article needs work, but WP:DINC. As it stands, though, the article more than meets GNG and is worthy of inclusion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep; oppose renaming cissexism per Maddy from Celeste, Beccaynr, XOR'Easter, and Last1in. With regards to the relationship between cisgenderism, cisnormativity, and transphobia: it matches the relationship between heterosexism, heteronormativity, and homophobia - closely related but separate concepts. With regards to renaming as cissexism, Julie Serano has clarified that I also make a distinction between cissexism (i.e., the assumption that transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments are less legitimate than cissexual ones) and cisgenderism (i.e., the assumption that people who defy gender norms are less legitimate than people who conform to them), this distinction is noted in other sources [15] [16] so I think the article should clarify cissexism is a subset of cisgenderism rather than synonym (though often used that way). Additionally, this ngram search (admittedly an imperfect metric) shows that cisgenderism is a more common term than cissexism. [17]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the difference between cissexism and cigenderism. It's gonna take work, but in that case maybe it will be later worth turning back cissexism from a redirect to a proper article. Having confused definitions in feminism and gender studies is such a common issue, especially given half the papers don't bother defining the terms too. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

No problem, thank you for noting the scholarly coverage of the terms! For the record my keep vote was also based on yours - I feel a little silly I left that out above considering it inspired a large part of my vote lol. I agree an independent article for cissexism might be a good idea, I've got it on my to-do list now! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Last1in has shown irrefutably above that the article surpasses the thresholds for WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG, that there is plenty more material out there to research on this topic, and that the arguments levied against it are invalid. The discussion above also shows that there is the will to research it, an indication that the article will improve further over time. I came here researching the uses of the shortcuts presented at Wikipedia:Content forks, and I've found that the claim that the article is a redundant fork is false, because it is about a distinct topic. Conclusion: it's a policy-backed bona fide Wikipedia article.    — The Transhumanist   13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.