Talk:cis-

The consensus is that "cis [man/woman/female/male/person/etc]" and "trans [man/woman/female/male/person/etc]" should have a space, because whether a person is cis or trans doesn't actually modify their gender or even the way in which they are that gender, so "cisman" for example doesn't make any more sense than say "blondman" or "tallman".

• And was every native speaker involved in establishing this ‘consensus’? Ƿidsiþ 18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A significant percentage of English-speaking trans* people have been. 86.153.59.54 16:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge two gender senses?

The "related to or specific to cis persons" sense could IMO be merged with the "cisgender/cissexual" sense, with no significant loss. To take one example given, "cisnormativity" could be explained as "cisgender normativity" just as well as "normativity related to cis persons". Equinox ◑ 03:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree they could be combined. Looking at the entry, I figured the "related to cis persons" sense must've been unnecessarily added recently, but looking at the history, I see that in fact it was the only sense for a while(!), and I had to add the more obvious one! (As an aside, let's at least change the definition to "people" and not "persons", which sounds weird...)
If we want the definition to explicitly cover "cisnormativity" as well as "cisman", maybe it could say "being, or pertaining to being, cisgender"? The text of definition 3 would work for everything except "cisgender" and "cissexual" themselves, where things get trickily circular (if "cis-" is defined as "cisgender", then "cisgender" means "cisgendergender"?)... - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Pronounciation

It would be useful to clarify if it is normally pronounced with a 'hard c' or a 'soft c'. Being latin-derived, either seems possible.