Talk:Trans

Trans

Trans is a Latin root prefix. No example words will be given here, check other places

I would like to see a "Trans" article unto itself. Not just directly related to transgender and transexual --Sdowney

Whoever wrote the chicken thing in the transexual part was extremely rude. I changed it to say that trans stood for transexual, but didn't put anything else.--Jademushroom 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

The cis and trans section in molecular biology suggests that both cis and trans actions are operating in both examples. For example, RNA polymerase is an external factor binding to the promoter sequence, although the DNA recruiting it is described as a cis interaction. Please clarify!

Ά —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.154.120 (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that there are separate articles for trans-acting and cis-acting. Therefore I have simplified the molecular biology entry in this disambiguation page and included links to the above mentioned pages. I hope the distinction between cis and trans in the context of molecular biology is now clearer. Boghog2 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sports

Added FC Narva Trans. Though I understand this disambiguation deals with 'trans' ordinarily as a prefix, 'FC' stands for football club and Narva is the geographical township leaving Trans as the only individualising denomination. Searchers may end up here looking for the team (esp. non-English speaking). Hope everyone understands. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Further: It is referred to simply as Trans regularly including at Meistriliiga clubs 2009. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dab page guidelines

I have attempted to edit this page according to the guidelines for disambiguation pages found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Dab pages are not articles and their purpose is not to explain, define, or give examples of the terms, but merely to assist the user who types in "trans" find the article he or she was seeking. Therefore, if something is not commonly known as "trans", it ought not be on this dab page. Articles should not be listed simply because they begin with "trans". If you think Wikipedia needs an article explaning the concept of "trans", then this page could be moved to Trans (disambiguation) and the concept article could appear at Trans. As it stands now, however, this is a dab page. SlackerMom (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Trans as in a "trans" double bond isomer in chemistry or a "trans" acting factor in molecular biology are commonly used terms within their respective fields and therefore should be included in this disambiguation page. The identical term "trans" has very different meanings in these two fields and therefore is a source of confusion when chemists talk with molecular biologists. Boghog2 (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This article (as presently worded) disambiguates the word "trans" and the prefix "trans-". I think it is the nature of a DAB page to provide links to articles where this prefix is used (I've jumped here before to find the chemistry definition, so I'm sure others are here hunting for similar articles that use the prefix). One solution is to make another DAB page Trans- (disambiguation) or something, however, I think it would be appropriate to keep the prefix entries here in a section. I do agree that the previous incarnation of the disambiguation page was too article-like and wordy (which is why I added the cleanup tags). The concept of "trans" could stay in first paragraph, but should be at most a paragraph in length. I don't think a separate article describing the concept is necessary. +mt 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine as it is now. If the entries here are useful in helping people negotiate different uses of "trans" in the sciences, then I think that's a good reason to keep them. It's important that we don't allow the page to fill up with every article that begins with "trans", and I'm concerned that might happen if we don't keep an eye on it. I'm not a "science person", so I will defer to those who understand its scientific uses better. SlackerMom (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

agelos

i lisen one trck trans and i thing is nice song for us.bue bue.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.51.7 (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. The general consensus is that transgender and cisgender do not have the requisite primacy for the abbreviations "trans" and "cis" to be primary redirects to them. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

---

• Trans → Trans (disambiguation)
• Cis → Cis (disambiguation)

– Trans should redirect to Transgender and Cis to Cisgender. According to PageViews, Transgender and Cisgender are much, much more popular than any of the alternatives. The only article that comes even kind of close to either of them is Trans fat, but even then it's several times less popular than Transgender, and trans fat is not generally shortened to trans. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Transgender vs. alts 1 – Transgender vs. alts 2 – Cisgender vs. alts WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both - Slang shortenings of words do not a primaryredirect make when there are so many alternatives. App, Coke, Info, Limo, Memo, and Quad have about the same number of alternative meanings, and are slang that are likely far more common use, but are not primaryredirects. Page views comparison is false equivalence. These moves might make sense if you're in a particular bubble, but not in the English-speaking world at large. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • They aren't slang terms. No dictionary lists them under slang or informal. (Trans 1, 2, 3. Cis 1, 2, 3.)
  • Counterexamples of abbrs that are primary redirects: U.S. (37 entries on disambig page), BBC (37), ammo (4), rehab (30), veggie (6), flu (22), fridge (4), ad (73 at AD (disambiguation)), bike (11), cello (17)
  • Both terms are used in reliable mainstream sources.
    • Associated Press Official accused of harassing trans student gets job back
    • New York Times casting cis actors in trans roles
    • BBC: Leo: Becoming a Trans Man
    • New York Times Read These 3 Books on Trans Rights and Gender Identity
    • American Journal of Preventive Medicine trans men were more likely than cis women to have an up-to-date mammography test
  • These moves might make sense if you're in a particular bubble Please just focus on my suggestion and its merits. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • See also Einstein, which redirects to Albert Einstein even though Einstein (disambiguation) has 30 entries. Specifically cited in WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @WanderingWanda:, your rebuttal examples are horrible:
      • U.S. and US are overwhelmingly a reference to the United States. US (disambiguation) is the related DAB page and no other topic uses "U.S." (with the dots). Most entries are either "Us" or far less commonly-used abbreviations.
      • BBC is a primary, not a redirect - totally doesn't apply.
      • ammo is universally linked to ammunition. All entries on Ammo (disambiguation) relate to ammunition.
      • rehab was changed recently (undiscussed) and the editor failed to put a hatnote on his chosen target. A mistake I've corrected by reverting to a redirect to the DAB page.
      • veggie is universally linked to vegetable. Even the Veggie (disambiguation) redirect to Vegetable (disambiguation), and nothing on that uses "veggie" as a title.
      • flu is universally linked to influenza. Almost all entries on Flu (disambiguation) relate to the disease.
      • fridge is universally linked to refrigerator. All entries on Fridge (disambiguation) relate to the appliance.
      • ad is universally linked to advertising. No other entries on AD (disambiguation) use "ad". (the domain extension is actually ".ad")
      • bike is heavily linked to bicycle. 4 of 6 entries on Bike (disambiguation) relate to the vehicle, the others are far less used.
      • cello is a primary article, not a dab page like trans/Cis - totally doesn't apply.
      • Einstein is to dominantly associated with Albert as to be unavoidable. We're also much more likely to do this with personal names than we are common words like trans and cis that have multiple meanings.

      I of course checked most of these prior to posting my rationale. But I couldn't imagine anyone would try to use them as evidence of different handling. -- Netoholic @ 02:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The words trans and cis are, on their own, dominantly associated with transgender and cisgender. Type trans into Google. Right now, I mean it. If you insist on talking about bubbles, fine, let's pop yours. Look through the results. Tell me how long it takes you before you get to a page that isn't about gender identity. If you find one tell me how long before you find a second.

I'll also point to this guideline at WP:TITLE: The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for. A user sits down at her computer, types in trans, and pushes enter. What is she probably searching for? Trans-lunar injection? Trans-acting? Of course not. First of all because hardly anyone is searching for those two things (see: PageView statistics) and second because if she wanted trans-something-or-other she would've typed trans-something-or-other. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no evidence to support this. Your page views are comparing apples to oranges. Let's look at Google Ngrams for both.... whoops. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on __->__(disambiguation), oppose __ -> __gender As the page currently stands this is effectively a disambiguation page, however in the history of the page it has also been at least in part about the Latin word. Still, that could be covered by an article like __ (Latin). Given the wide range of topics it's not clear trans and cis should be redirected to __gender pages. It's unlikely someone searching for transgender would get confused if trans went to a disabiguation page instead of "transgender". Interestingly, the spell check of my web browser doesn't recognize "transgender" and suggests "trans-gender" or "trans gender". Springee (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support both. I was convinced by the combination of the Einstein example (I don't think someone searching for Einstein would get confused by a disambiguation page either, but so many more people search for it than the next most more popular thing "Einstein" could refer to or the full name "Albert Einstein" that the utility of a direct link is obvious) and knowledge of the fact that almost all references to cis or trans people today use the terms "cis" and "trans". As further support, I looked up what Gay currently goes to, and while it's not a redirect for Homosexuality it does go directly to a page about the term instead of to Gay (disambiguation). LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  the fact that almost all references to cis or trans people today use the terms - if this is a FACT, citing supporting sources with evidence would be easy. I think you might presume this to be the case, but its only true in specific bubbles of discussion. -- Netoholic @ 02:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both - There are too many cities, math terms and films to make these slang terms into redirects. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both – Cis/trans are a widely used terms in chemistry and molecular biology. Boghog (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) There are many, many uses of the terms cis and trans, most of which have nothing to do with gender. Even though the gender related terms many be the single most important, they are still tiny compared to the over all totals. The Ngram graphic Netoholic linked above is a dramatic illustration of this. Boghog (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support both per WanderingWanda. As a side note, I'm unclear why people are referring to them as slang terms but if that informs their opinions I worry they may be misguided. Rab V (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose moving cis Searching "cis" on Google books, I found that 3 out of the first 200 results used "cis" to refer to gender, and 3 others had no preview but seemed to be about trans issues. I looked at every single one of the 1000 results google scholar returned for the term, and none were about gender. Restricting the search to only papers published in 2019, scholar let me see 980 papers, in which I found:

Extended content

one paper each with "Hetero-cis-normativity", "cis- and heteronormativity", and "cis/heterosexuality" three studies which classified participants: as "cis-male", "cis-female", "trans-male", and "trans-female" (AIDS patients); as "bigender", "cis woman", "gender queer", "trans woman", "two-spirit", and "woman" (people experiencing microaggressions for bisexuality); and as "cis-female" sex workers and their "cis-male" partners, respectively. Two which hyphenated "cis-gender" or "cis-gendered" An essay in which the author self-described as "cis/queer/woman" one source about "trans and cis women athletes"; another about the structural violence facing queer Canadian immigrants, which critiqued "white cis gay male subjectivity"; and third the book "Camp TV: Trans Gender Queer Sitcom History", which talked about characters being "presumed cis".

• I decided to check JSTOR as well, since the GScholar results were overwhelmingly related to science or medicine and JSTOR is weighted more towards the humanities. Searching across all time, 10 of the first 1000 results had to do with gender; of these, the ones I could access used "cis" in the expressions "cis men" or "cis women". Restricting the search to 2019 yielded 219 items, none of which involved science. Here are the ones involving gender:

Extended content

(Midway through counting these I started ignoring instances of "cis-gender", which are mostly bad OCR) 12 chapters in a book of non-binary memoirs 5 chapters in a book on how "cis white men" have had too much influence in the field of ethnography 4 chapters in a book on intersex experiences 3 chapters from a memoir on being a gay christian 3 chapters from a forthcoming book on black feminism in Europe 2 chapters in a symposium on digital cultures: one person says "white, cis-, het- man", and another quotes him in responding 2 chapters in another book of black queer memoirs A chapter from a book on gay bodybuilding A chapter in a book on radical political writing A book chapter on the ethics of penis transplants A chapter in a book on queer writing studies which calls one of the author's naysayers a "white, het-cis senior faculty member" An article on alt-right memes A review of a young adult book about shipwrecks? A book on gay men which used the expression "straight cis man" once A chapter in a book on black masculinity in which the author self-identifies as "a cis female". A chapter on "Orange Is the New Black" in a book on feminist theories of menstruation. 2 portions of an interview on sex trafficking: the interviewee says "Our clients are mostly women (both cis and transgender)" and something about feminism being focussed on "(cis-)women" A book chapter of someone saying he thought it was wrong to label people as cis A book that says transgender activists coined the term "cis women" as part of asserting their rights A book about bullying in schools that says that in a survey on gender, 1 out of 124 respondents self-identified as "cis"

• Overall, one of the 19 journal articles published in 2019 used "cis-male", four more used "cis-gender" (probably bad OCR), 14 weren't about gender. If I've counted correctly (I may be off by a few), of the 132 distinct books/edited collections, 19 were bad OCR of the name "Francis"; 18 were verified to contain "cis" used to indicate gender, typically "cis man", "cis women", or "cis female"; 11 more were bad OCR of "cisgender"; and the remaining 84 mainly dealt with other things called CIS, like the commonwealth of independent states.

  I haven't yet done enough research on "trans" to !vote, but what I've seen so far looks similar. Edit: Oh wait, wouldn't WP:TLAs apply here? I don't know if it's kosher to suggest this in the middle of another move proposal, but I would support merging CIS into Cis. Cheers, gnu57 15:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Quick comment on trans: 10/1000 alltime GScholar papers with "trans" are about gender. In 2019, 28/990. Cheers, gnu57 00:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both I do not see the overwhelming notability in favor of a slang term as opposed to the myriad other potential meanings of the word._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both It is clear that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, so a disambiguation page is appropriate. shoy (reactions) 18:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose these moves 2601:541:4500:1760:791D:8E03:7E58:1DD7 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both Widely used terms with many significant meanings beyond gender, such as Cis-trans isomerism. Long-term significance must be considered. feminist (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both. While I recognize a large number of pageview statistics to the gender-related articles, these are primarily prefixes that don't mean much on their own (e.g. Sub). See the "Prefix" section for the Wiktionary articles for trans and cis. +mt 21:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• @WanderingWanda:, Please don't make changes such as these [[1]], [[2]] while discussing the page move. It comes across as PUSH and suggests that you are ignoring the consensus building process. If this is a disambiguation page I certainly would not support those changes. Based on your profile and edit history it's very clear that you find this topic to be important to you. However, that doesn't mean we should give it special treatment in the disambiguation page. Alternatively, if we look at the history of this page, the first definition should be the Latin definition then followed by alternative uses. After all, the Latin is what the word means. Anyway, remember that if your desired change is the correct one in the end then there is no reason to push too quickly. Per your profile you have only been editing for a few months, remember, you don't have to do everything at once. Springee (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't think it had anything to do to with the move discussion one way or the other. Regardless of whether the move happens or doesn't happen, the most popular pages on the disambig page should probably be on top. That's not giving those subjects "special treatment", anymore than putting Albert Einstein at the top of Einstein disambiguation page is giving Albert special treatment. But I'm happy to wait until the move discussion is over to deal with the formatting of the disambig page. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Very bad form, and tactical. I've reverted. -- Netoholic @ 05:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed, bad form. It could be put under Other uses as slang terms, but never at the top of the disambiguation article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• A note that the pages cis and trans are surprisingly unpopular. Much less popular than the pages transgender and cisgender: PageViews. Just thought it was interesting, I'm not pointing this because I think it supports the move. In fact it might do the opposite (if there's high reader interest in cisgender/transgender, but few readers are visiting cis/trans, perhaps that means that readers don't expect the pages cis/trans to give them info about cisgender/transgender topics.) WanderingWanda (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  This argument works both ways - the less that the trans/cis dab pages are used, the less it matters if we make them redirects you want them to be. Really, we do not want to make them WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs specifically because we would not want editors to use them in that way. Editors should use the full term in formal writing style, not only for presentation but for long-term accuracy. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Here's the thing, though: a disambiguation page is supposed to help in cases where a title refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia (WP:DAB). That is not the case with the scientific terms we're discussing. The word trans, on its own, does not mean cis–trans isomerism or trans fat, or trans-lunar injection, or trans-acting. No one would expect an article titled just "trans" to cover trans-lunar injection. Given the articles that currently exist, if the choice is between trans redirecting to the disambig page or redirecting to transgender, trans should redirect to transgender.

With that said, one possible compromise is the idea, that Springee brought up, of creating new articles about the latin terms cis and trans. I would be fine with these two hypothetical articles being the primary articles, provided they both had hatnotes that linked to cisgender and transgender respectively. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

re The word trans, on its own, does not mean cis–trans isomerism Thats because the article is about both cis and trans (isomers). Its like saying that trans (person) does not mean cis-trans-persons. But a compound could be cis, like cis-2-methylbutene. Christian75 (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• It is a little disheartening that people are continuing to use the word slang after it's been pointed out, more than once, that we are not discussing slang terms. (I even took the time to back this up with references.) I've put good faith effort into engaging with the other side throughout this discussion, and hope for the same in return. Whether intended or not, slang has certain connotations that don't apply here. It implies that the word is only used by certain in-groups (and that it might, therefore, be exclusionary), or that it's informal. In short, it implies that the word is not mainstream and not encyclopedic. None of that is true. I've pointed to several mainstream sources that use the word, for example. Look at the at the dictionary.com definition of trans: not only is not listed under slang or informal, the very first listed definition is transgender/transsexual. In fact it's essentially the only listed definition. (It puts scientific definitions of the word under trans-, not trans.) Look again at M-W's definition: again it's not listed as slang, and again transgender/transsexual is the #1 definition. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will point you to the definition of "slang": Slang is language (words, phrases, and usages) of an informal register that members of particular in-groups favor (over the common vocabulary of a standard language) in order to establish group identity, exclude outsiders, or both. That sounds like it fits the word to a tee since it is informal, used by a group to establish group identity. "Transgender" is still used in a formal context and the shortening of the word has not grown to encompass all standard usage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Not all words that are informal are slang. Furthermore, the word "trans" is commonly used in news sources and academic papers (see for example here and here) which would be very odd if it was slang, or even truly "informal". LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• That academic paper only uses the term "trans" in conjunction with "trans woman", or "trans gender", or transphobic. Not by itself. You could be correct in academic papers, but this one is a poor choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wait, but of course it does. Trans is an adjective. It doesn't exist "by itself". It always modifies some other word. I think what you're trying to do here is an attempt to equate "trans woman" with the words transphobic and transgender, which are indeed not examples, in order to claim that usages like "trans women", "trans men", and "trans people" are invalid. But that doesn't make sense. The use of "trans-" as part of a compound word is different from "trans" the adjective. LokiTheLiar (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.