| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cissexism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cissexism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cissexism at the Reference desk. |
| This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Needs more sources
editAs it stands, this article relies much too heavily on a single source—Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity by Julia Serano—creating the appearance of WP:PROMOTION. JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, JohnValeron. I am working on adding sources. Gersandelf (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Credible source?
editIs this cited source really credible enough to be cited? http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/everyday-cissexism/ The statement, "Also, ya know, I don’t like the idea of defining my child by their genitals. Creepy!" doesn't really sound authoritative on any matter 75.115.210.123 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Issues with sources
editI would argue that source 4, http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 should not be used or attributed to the quote, "Genetic sex", in fact, cannot be determined by looking: we are unable to readily see people's sex chromosomes and, furthermore, "a person's genetic sex not matching their assigned sex occurs more often than most people would ever fathom." The second half of this quote is unfounded - the article in question is a secondary source and does not put forth strong statistical data or theoretical proof of such a statement. To provide an example of the article's error, the author states, "1 person in 100 has some form of DSD". I reviewed the source listed for this statement and found it was not the primary source for this data. I eventually found the primary source and discovered that 100 was a misreading of 100,000 due to the differences in number notation between countries [2]. The paper was authored in Germany so what was written as 100.000 was actually 100,000 leading to a significant error in reporting.
Furthermore, the author relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, lacks statistical analysis, frequently obscures/confuses the terms of gender and sex in relation to the research of the primary sources and even misinterprets some of the studies and data used as in-text citations. The author even states, "My story is not an academic review, which would involve comprehensive literature citation, but a piece of journalism, which focuses on the reporting of current events relating to the public interest." [1]
1. [1] 2. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:600:B6EB:C063:1EDF:5982:FFC2 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
content removal
editThis article was kinda crap. There were copy vio issues. *note: changing two words in a sentence cut n past from elsewhere, does not allow you to avoid copy vio issues* There was almost total reliance on one source. If that particular book is the source, then the article should be about that book, and not portraying it as a generally accepted view. Really crappy English that made no sense. Perhaps that were an important point hiding in the bad English, I wouldn't know, because I wasn't about to spend 20 minutes trying to decipher it. Either way, fix/cite/re-write the content please, if you wish to restore it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Merge
editHow would editors feel about merging this article with either Cisgender or Sexism ? Which would be the best to merge with? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- What about merging with transphobia? In practice, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. -sche (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- That seems like a more sensible suggestion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- The proper thing to do is to raise the question at both articles. These do not appear to be precisely identical topics; a phobia is not identical to a prejudice. Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- That seems like a more sensible suggestion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've redirected it to transphobia and requested a history merge. If there was any content here that is not present on the transphobia article, please add it as required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
An IP undid the merge. As for a reason for merging, it's obviously because the separate article, which is currently very small, is not needed. WP:No page applies here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes; as it stands now, I don't see anything in this small article that requires it to be separate from transphobia. Anything of note in this article which is not already covered in transphobia should be moved there. (Pace Montanabw, "_phobia" does generally include prejudice outside of certain narrow psychological contexts.) -sche (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've undone the IP's edit, returning the page to its stable state as a redirect. The only content in this article which did not appear to be present in the other article was a sentence on cisgender privilege which I moved, and the sentence regarding "disclosing". -sche (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)