Talk:Cisnormativity

Western gender binary

What is a "western" gender binary? Is it different to the east? Can we drop the word "Western"? 67.83.108.122 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Done; it makes more sense without it and it isn't the place for commentary on where a gender binary does or does not apply - though I'll note that the gender binary is most certainly not restricted to the West. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason I had it like that is quite simply that that's what the source says. I'm not that attached to that nuance, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cisnormativity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FenrisAureus (talk · contribs) 11:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 13:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC) by AnomieBOT

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

Sources spot checked for reliability and NOR:

Ref #	pass/fail
4	✓ Pass
15	✓ Pass
16	✓ Pass
23	✓ Pass
28	✓ Pass

— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

Earwig score 2% similarity. [1] Plagarism highly unlikely. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall: Looks good to me. Pass.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

Full body scanners

It might be worth adding something to the article in the consequences section about those TSA Full body Scanners. See: Full body scanner#Treatment of transgender people and the bibliography of this video for sources on the topic.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Peer review

Cisnormativity

I would like to hear how close this article is to passing a featured article candidacy. It is largely unchanged since I brought it to GA last December. At the time, I remember doing as comprehensive a review as I possibly could of the available academic sources discussing the topic, but I've never touched the FA process before, so any input is very welcome!

Thanks, -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As requested, I'll do a review similar to what I would provide at FAC, in order to help you get a good idea of what reviewers might pick up on. I'm not that familiar with the topic, so it'll likely focus more on prose than sourcing, coverage, or other, less superficial areas.

• Very good first paragraph. Fulfils MOS:INTRO as good as any I have seen.
• The second sentence of the second paragraph is a bit lengthy and long-winded. This paragraph is also quite focused on the effects on cisnormativity on the healthcare of transgender people; as WP:LEAD favours summarising the whole article, it would be nice if the other effects outlined in "Manifestations" were also summarised in the lead. For example, a sentence summarising "Education" would be nice.
• I suppose "trans" is a common enough word to not need one, but perhaps "cis" as the shortened form of "cisgender" could use a gloss before its first use?

Body

• I would put Serano's quote later in the first paragraph, and start with the when/where coinage of "cisnormativity". Starts the article body off more focused/encyclopedic and less essay-like.
• Although the separation between the first and third lead paragraphs works better, I feel that the sections "Definition" and "Intersectionality..." could be merged, especially as the "Definition" section already considers related concepts.
• I must compliment this article's prose, I'm really finding very little to pick at.
• Take care with the images though—MOS:IRELEV notes that they "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". With the caption, the poster image is a little tangential—not completely significant in the topic's context. The simple sex-segregated diagram is however an excellent representation.
• Short paragraphs generally do not warrant their own subsections per MOS:OVERSECTION. Consider ways to combine short subsections, so that the prose is less cluttered.
• Although "Transmedicalism" is a section heading, its meaning is never actually explained, and it is a WP:SEEALSO link. The reader is sort of left wondering.

Otherwise, extremely high-quality article, in my opinion. I'll almost certainly support if you ping me at the FAC nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Maddy from Celeste: Are you still interested in receiving more comments, or should this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, thank you, Z1720 and AirshipJungleman29. I haven't been very active this month and didn't see these comments. Will take some time this weekend to address these! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Changed the few occurrences of cis to cisgender
• Merged the intersectionality section into definition.
• Removed the image in question.
• Changed the section heading to the more general "internalized transphobia", which is explained and wikilinked.
• Adjusted the second lead paragraph for balance of topics

@AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry that it took so long. I've done some simpler revisions now. I'm not quite awake enough today to think about the overall structure of the manifestations section, so I'll try to get back to you on that tomorrow. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Welp, I did not in fact get back on to this tomorrow. It hasn't been a very "getting things done" kind of couple of weeks. I'll definitely look at this when I can, but if y'all want to close this request in the meantime, that's find by me. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith

Just a few quick comments:

• The term cisnormativity was coined in a 2009 article How do we know that article was the first use of the term? Also, it seems odd that this is cited to one source but the next statement ("which defines...") is cited to a different source. Are you sure that's correct?
• According to the 2009 JANAC article I would have phrased this as "According to Tordoff et al".
• I'm not sure that "erase", used in the context you are using it here, i.e. Queer erasure, is appropriately formal language for an encyclopedia, per MOS:NEO, at least without defining it here.

@Maddy from Celeste: Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)