Skip to main content
Just a general FYI, as a consequence of Musk tweeting that cis is a slur, there is now vandalism going on wiktionary.

Transphobes are editing the definition of cisgender to add that it's offensive, and that people prefer "gender-normative" and "nontransgender" (which are so much not a thing that one of those words doesn't even exist on the platform).

I don't know much about how wiki works or how to report this kind of behaviour.

I tried to revert the guy's edit, and literally seconds later he reverted it again.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cisgender&oldid=73567303#Adjective

The only "sources" are recent articles reacting to Elon Musk's tweet.

cisgender - Wiktionary

en.wiktionary.org
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
If anyone knows how to protect pages from vandalism on wikipedia, it would be good to, because this will be used by fascists as "proof" that cisgender is controversial.

Those edits were all made today specifically, and they're very clearly politically motivated.

The user that keeps doing this has now locked the page, so the wiktionary definition of cisgender now says that it's offensive.

I think it's pretty dangerous to let this up because right wingers are directly using this manipulated page to give themselves validity.
Petra van Cronenburg
Petra van Cronenburg  
•
You can ask @wikipedia directly - they are here!
@Wikipedia
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
I wasn't sure which account is official or not, and couldn't find good sources.

I'm also not exactly used to the codes of how to report something on wikipedia, so I did what I can, only to get yellwed at by admins who clearly do not care about transphobia and don't see the issue.

As far as I'm concerned, wikipedia related websites are just free platforms to push right wing disinformation now. Clearly there is no good way to get it removed from there, and the only admins that cared enough to intervene were telling me to shut the fuck up.
Petra van Cronenburg
Petra van Cronenburg  
•
This is horrible!
Unfortunately, I don't know much about the reporting process either, only that it's easier for members who also contribute (everybody can become one). Then it is a process of debates.
So I hoped that by addressing their account they should hear what happens.
@wikipedia I do hope that Wikipedians do their work now!
Thank you for making it public. #Wikipedia #Wiktionary
#Wikipédia #Wiktionary @Wikipedia
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
Not exactly. The power tripping admin put the disinformation back in every time someone tried to address it.

Then they locked the page so only some people can edit it (not sure how it works)

Then an admin didn't ask that I reported this behaviour so they locked the page even more.

Wiktionary has basically taken the stance that cisgender is an offensive term, and that trans people who want to remove this disinformation are a nuisance.

No one can edit it (other than other admins, I presume)
Wikipedia
Wikipedia  
•
thanks for the ping - just to clarify, Wiktionary and Wikipedia are sister projects, but have mostly separate governance structures and content policies.

The discussion seems to have moved to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk/2023/June#%22Cisgender%22_engenders_controversy where other people are starting to chime in...I'll see if I can poke some Wiktionarians to get more details.

Wiktionary:Information desk/2023/June - Wiktionary

en.wiktionary.org
grin
grin  
•
Well looking at the case I see it is exaggerated to the extremes, and also presents a lot of offensive approach from some non-binary(?) (or SJW?) people. Nobody seem to have tried to discuss anything, they just went on forcing their opinions down to others' throats.
I would be just nice if people (either minority or not) would learn to intelligently debate about their opinions. (And first familiarise themselves with what they're about to criticise.)
PJ Coffey
PJ Coffey  
•
I, personally, wouldn't "both sides" it when a set of people whose human rights are under repeated and frequent assault are under attack by people who are strongly opposed to bodily autonomy.

I mean, if national newspapers declared that you were a paedophile and wiki put your picture in next to the definition, would you be calm about it? Just a bit of an exercise in empathy for you to consider why there might be ill-feeling and raised tempers.

@wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC
@Wikipedia @Petra van Cronenburg @Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
grin
grin  
•
That's a lot of "what if"s.

I do not agree that anyone was under frequent and repeated assault. I do not see anyone publishing personal defamation.

I see a lot of people counterattacking aggressively based on a preceived attack I do not see to exist. Protecting their rights not being violated. And do an awful lot of name calling in the process.
PJ Coffey
PJ Coffey  
•
Do you not have access to print or other mainstream media? Do you require specific people to be attacked to notice? Are you happy with the concept that racism can exist without attacking specific individuals? If so, then why not transphobia?

Do you understand that trans is a description? Or is that a slur as well?

Sorry to ask so many questions, I'm having real difficulty understanding why you don't understand.

@wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC
@Wikipedia @Petra van Cronenburg @Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
grin
grin  
•
You are wrong. You mix up understanding with agreement.

Yes, I do require specific people to be attacked to accept a complaint about being attacked! Definitely.

Existing racism (or anything) is not a basis to request special handling in specific cases, nor to use it to justify your attacks.

I do not know whether there are people considering 'trans' a slur, why asking me? Ask the non-trans people being called so.

Any' else need explaining?
PJ Coffey
PJ Coffey  
•
It seems like _you're_ lack of agreement is pretty standard _chosen_ ignorance and bias. Your education and knowledge of this matter is woefully deficient. Woefully.

You're certainly demonstrating no "understanding" merely an inappropriate milquetoast both-sidesism. I'm not attacking you, I'm just bewildered by your confidence in this matter where you're clearly very wrong.

Certainly though, deliberate misunderstanding of my questions is disingenuous.

@wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC
@Wikipedia @Petra van Cronenburg @Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
grin
grin  
•
You are also seriously mistaken about the way attacks work. Attacking someone then saying "I am not attacking you" does not revert it.
You know nothing about me, all your statements are based on your emotions, bias, ignorance and/or lack of will to listen.
Your loaded questions naturally didn't want any real answers, they were your projections with a question mark at the end.
It is kind of amusing to look how you chose to ignore to listen.
grin
grin  
•
What you don't seem to understand, though, is that you cannot justify your wrongs (or request special rights) by citing generally existing attacks about a large group which you may or may not claim to be a member.

There was no specific attack. You see a thing and imagine that it could be an attack, so you take it as one, then base your whole argument on that assumption. "Attack until proven else." This will not work.
grin
grin  
•
Also I am sorry if someone, or someones have attacked you in your past or present. However you must not assume that _everyone_ want to attack you, and must not assume that everyone thinks about the same things you do.

Some people may attack you vor various reasons **NOT** related to your gender identity. They just do. Understand that, too.
Peace.
Harry Hall
Harry Hall  
•
He's not transphobic at al. Saying that the term cis-gender is offensive is not an attack. It's not entirely a true statement as it's only offensive to a minority of people, but it is also not in any way an attack.

It's also not up to you to determine if somebody finds it offensive. It's up to them. In this case that means it's up to cis people to determine if that term is offensive. To most it is not but apparently to some it is.
grin
grin  
•
Interesting fact: I wouldn't even guessed it could be offensive until about a week ago, when I mentioned that (some) people may find any something offensive and this should be recognised, and the responses (probably from "noncis" people) almost always used the word "cis" as a slur and derogatory, offensive term, including me in a group of "obviously worthless people".
Very simliar to calling me "nazi".
And they don't see.
Harry Hall
Harry Hall  
•
You're exactly correct. Both of the people making edits cared more about their agenda than accurately reflecting the usage of the term in an unbiased way. That's why the admins had to step in. It's sad that people here are using a dictionary to debate something rather than a forum but I guess that's what happens in a world like today.
Harry Hall
Harry Hall  
•
The page has been updated now to indicate that some people find the term cis-gender offensive but that said people are generally a part of the anti-trans agenda.

The reason they reverted your edits from what I can tell is because they wanted to discuss the fact that some people do find it offensive but that these people are a minority of people. This needed to be pointed out in the usage notes like it now has been.

You getting angry at the admins didn't help
grin
grin  
•
By the way if you read through this "discussion" the terms "cis" and "cishet" almost have been exlusively used as slurs and within strong negative context, usually attacking someone or used the same way as "jew" (by nazis) or "nazi" (by anyone with an agenda).
Harry Hall
Harry Hall  
•
Can I see some examples of it being used offensively? I have seen it used many times in a non-offensive manner personally so I somewhat doubt this claim.
grin
grin  
•
Started with "Transphobes are editing the definition of cisgender", "Don't let cis people censor us, they try to do that with everything", "Cis people love their tone policing. Must be so nice to be a random cishet guy sitting on a PC", "a bunch of cis guys confirming each other's bias in a loop", just from this very thread.

The first calls t-ph anyone dare to edit but not specifically "cis"d, the others use the word to group and belittle.
Harry Hall
Harry Hall  
•
I don't think the term cis is inherently offensive, but it's clear that some people are using it in an insulting, offensive manner. This is understandable because trans people are an oppressed group of people. It's not a great way to make allies or convince people of the cause. It would be much better to call out transphobes directly like I have done on certain occasions.
grin
grin  
•
I completely agree with this summary.
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
If anyone was wondering, anti-trans propaganda is just a "content dispute", and trans people trying to fight back against weakly sourced biased disinformation on wiktionary is actually "spurious flooding".

So yeah, fun times to be trans, as with everything else 😀
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
Can't believe that just because some random transphobe decided to edit wikipedia and say that cis is a slur on it, now that's going to be the canon forever in there.

Good job everyone, we're normalising the "cis is a slur" discourse, and no one gives a shit.
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
Cis people love their tone policing. Must be so nice to be a random cishet guy sitting on a PC and telling minorities how they should speak, while not lifting a finger to help them.

What a life.

Fuck Wikipedia. I'm done trying. Clearly this website is run by cryptofascists.

Sorry everyone for spamming about this. This started with me deleting some anti-trans vandalising, I didn't realise that admins would immediately protect the anti-trans content and shit on trans people.

Can't believe I ever donated to wikipedia's fundraising campaigns in the past, didn't realise the kind of people who have decision power there.
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
Aaaaand just as I thought it was sorted, some other admin had made a good compromise edit, that admin is back at it forcing his way in
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:
Liana :v_trans: :v_kirb:  
•
Yeah, I don't know, I shouldn't give a shit. But there is something very existentially worrying about big open sites like wikis behaving like this.

I always saw wikipedia as a good thing. I know sometimes trolls can make bad edits, but as far as I knew there's a lot of good people who take care of it.

But what I'm realising today from this horrible series of threads on wiktionary, is that it is literally a cesspool of abusive admins who are clearly here to shit on queer people while being polite and rule-following enough to look like they're "just doing their job"

It's honestly disgusting and idk how to feel about it. The fact that so far no one seems to have any clue what to do about it, or who is even in charge of that website is scary.

Like, this is one of the top ranked google sources for definitions and we're okay with it getting manipulated so easily?
Harry Hall
Harry Hall  
•
Why are you blaming Wikipedia when Wiktionary is at fault?

Wikimedia is just a piece of software anyone can use, like Mastodon or Lemmy. It's not a platform.
grin
grin  
•
And even Wiktionary is not at fault. It is a dictionary, documenting meaning and usage, not a political platform. Some usage may be controversial, and Wiktionary documents that, instead of dictating human behaviour…
⇧