Talk:Transsexual/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Requested move 23 November 2020

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: Not moved. Although there is some merit to move it per WP:NOUN, the consensus is to keep the current name per WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Transsexual → Transsexuality – The first use of transsexual in the article is as an adjective, whereas titles should generally be nouns or noun phrases. A 2015 RM discussion suggested that transsexual is the most common name, but its use as a countable noun ("True transsexuals feel..." à la Harry Benjamin) is on the same level as blacks for African Americans. That is, it's either academic jargon or simply outdated. Transsexuality is used by published, reliable sources such as Britannica, ScienceDirect, Diamond (2013), Meyerowitz (2009), and Schreiber (2016). Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 04:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. There is no more of a valid reason to move this article to "Transsexuality" than there is to move the Transgender article to "Transgenderism." The Terminology section, which focuses on the term transsexual (not transsexuality), is reason enough to leave the article where it's at. And although we do sometimes use transsexuality on Wikipedia to address the topic of transgender identity in general, it is a term that makes people think that the topic is all about, or mainly about, sexuality...when it's about more than that. And there are academic sources that address confusion over the term transsexuality in that regard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The same section says, "The word transsexual is most often used as an adjective rather than a noun". That's the main reason to move the article, because article titles should be nouns or noun phrases. I don't see any significant risk of confusion here; if transsexuality is good enough for the likes of Britannica, it should be good enough for us. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Dictionaries, such as this Dictionary.com source, list transsexual as a noun and as an adjective. They also do so regarding the term transgender. In fact, they tell us that it's usually offensive to use the term transgender as a noun. They state that "Use of transgender as a noun is declining and is usually taken as offensive. And people object to the adjectival variant transgendered because the –ed suffix could imply that something happened to make the person transgender." I wonder why you aren't suggesting that we move the Transgender article. And no need to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As it notes, such arguments can be valid or invalid. And, in this case, you have brought up what is done for other articles, as if we never have any exceptions regarding article titles. I will state that we commonly/usually do not copy what other encyclopedias do. That is what makes Wikipedia different. As for what is confusing or not in this case? I'm only interested in what academic sources state on the matter. We already have the Transgender article, which is about the transgender topic in general. Considering that the term transsexuality is used to refer to the transgender topic in general, renaming this article that confuses what this article is about. We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in this case. I haven't mentioned any other articles for comparison, but in fact I would support a move of Transgender to a less outdated or demeaning term. Right now we're discussing this article. WP:NOUN is policy, which means it represents established consensus. If we want to ignore policy in this case, then we would need a convincing argument for why doing so is an improvement, not just vague hand-waving about "exceptions". Specifically, I'm not aware of any blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. Avoiding doing so just to be "different" frankly seems bizarre. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  You stated that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case. And you stated that presumably because you argue that you "haven't mentioned any other articles for comparison." You brought up WP:NOUN in terms of what we do with other articles. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You need not specifically mention other articles for that to be the case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for what I've argued. No one stated anything about a blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. No one stated anything about avoiding doing so just to be different. The point on other encyclopedias is that we usually do not do things just because they have done it. And my point about renaming this article? I do not see how I can be any clearer. "We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community." No to a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. When it comes to the Transgender and Transsexual articles, a case can be made that if any of the two should be titled "Transsexuality"...then it's the Transgender article. But I wouldn't support changing the title of that article either. If the Transgender article was about the term transgender, then your case for renaming this one would be strong. This one would then be the one about the transgender topic in general. But it's not. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I have no idea where this OTHERSTUFF argument is coming from. I cited WP:NOUN, which is part of article titling policy, as a justification for renaming this article specifically. If we're saying that policy arguments are just OTHERSTUFF, then I guess we can get rid of policies and guidelines altogether. And the notion that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it" nullifies both WP:TERTIARY and much of the logic behind WP:COMMONNAME. We use other encyclopedias (especially academic ones) as a guide all the time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  You don't get it. Understood. For example, using other encyclopedias as sources in our articles is obviously not the same thing as copying what they do. And tertiary sources obviously aren't the strongest sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Per WP:TERTIARY: "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight". If you want to argue that Britannica is not a reliable teriary source, fine, but there's nothing in the policy that justifies not using tertiary sources as a model. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Doesn't take away from what I argued. Neither does you, as usual, putting words in my mouth. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not what I meant at all. To be clear, one could potentially make a case that Britannica itself is not the strongest source. If that's what you're arguing, fine. If not, then I don't see anything in the policy that specifically discourages using published encyclopedias as a model; quite the contrary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  What is "quite the contrary"? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics ... and may be helpful in evaluating due weight". We can use tertiary sources as a basis for constructing articles, and by extension, naming articles. Due weight, as a component of NPOV, applies to article titles as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  You don't need to quote WP:TERTIARY to me. You don't need to quote any policy or guideline to me. But you already know that. I've stated it to you enough times. You argued "quite the contrary", as if Wikipedia is in the habit of copying what other encyclopedias do. It's not. I asked "What is 'quite the contrary'?" for examples. I know what I'll be getting any I won't be getting any. Again, using encyclopedias in our Wikipedia articles is not the same thing as copying what they do. Our WP:Manual of Style, as discussed on that guideline's talk page times before, even makes a point of not doing what other outlets do for a number of things. But, hey, you do you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  WP:TITLE says Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used and it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias... WanderingWanda (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Essentially repeating what Sangdeboeuf stated, and like I don't know everything that WP:TITLE states. Yeaaah, that's helpful. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, the part of WP:COMMONNAME that WanderingWanda quoted is an even stronger endorsement of using sources like Britannica than what I said, and directly contradicts the notion that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Doesn't contradict my statement that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it" whatsoever. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  [T]he term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used means we often do do things just because other encyclopedias have done them, i.e. look at other encyclopedias to determine what article titles to use. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  "Being transsexual specifically" is exactly what transsexuality means, not "the transgender topic in general": "transsexual has generally been used to refer to the subset of transgender people who desire to transition permanently to the gender with which they identify ... transsexuality may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex, while transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition" (my bolding). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  If you are going to argue that the term transgender -- a well-accepted umbrella term -- is demeaning and offensive, then you should provide reliable sources, especially reliable academic sources, backing you up on that. Since you want to mention Britannica as support of what we should do here at Wikipedia, I note now that it also has a Transgender article. Well, it's titled "Transgender (gender identity)" when viewed from the outside of the article. But it's still there -- "transgender" right in the title. The difference is that Wikipedia would not disambiguate like that since WP:Primary topic exists and all. You argued, "'Being transsexual specifically' is exactly what transsexuality means, not 'the transgender topic in general'." I don't feel like sitting here and listing sources that clearly show that transsexuality doesn't only refer to those who have undergone hormone replacement therapy and/or surgery. By contrast, transsexual does. The reason that the Causes of transsexuality article has "transsexuality" in the title is because there was an objection to the term "transsexualism." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am not arguing that transgender is offensive; your own Dictionary.com source does that: "noun: 3: Usually Offensive. a person who is transgender". Regarding the need to have undergone hormone therapy/surgery, your own source for the definition of transsexual belies this: "1. a person having a strong desire to assume the physical characteristics and gender role of a different sex" (my bolding). Basic English grammar (i.e. the use of the suffix -ity) means that transsexuality is the state of being transsexual. I won't hold my breath waiting for sources saying transsexuality means something entirely different, because I'm pretty sure they don't exist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  You are the one who stated that you are considering moving the Transgender article "to a less outdated or demeaning term." And what term would that be? Hmm? You are the one who pointed to Britannica as support of what we should do here at Wikipedia. I pointed it back at you, showing that it also uses the Transgender article title. Regarding not holding your breath when it comes to me providing sources? Many editors know that I don't state anything about the literature on whatever unless it's true. As seen here at Talk:Transvestism, I'm known to provide a collapsed box of sources to support my arguments. But you aren't going to goad me into doing that at this talk page. My previous interactions with you on transgender topics have already made it clear to me that there are a lot of things you aren't aware exist in this field. I mean, not looking beyond dictionary sources when it comes to what transsexuality can refer to? Citing passages from this Wikipedia article? I usually don't have to request sources on this topic. I know what I'm talking about. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're driving at here; I didn't mention the Transgender article until you yourself brought it up. I replied that I would apply the same reasoning to that page as to this one. But I really don't care at this moment what we do with that article. I cited four academic sources plus Britannica on what transsexuality refers to. The dictionary sources are the same ones you and Crossroads used to justify your own arguments. I countered this by showing that they say the opposite of what was being claimed. If the section on Transsexual and its relationship to transgender that I cited is in error, feel free to correct it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Uh-huh. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know why you think that the section you've referred to using the words "generally", "may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex", and "transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition" translates to "transsexuality has only ever referred to physical alterations." But whatever. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not surprising, since I never made that claim. Being transsexual does not always mean physically altering one's body. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Never explicitly made the claim, but have been stating it nonetheless with comments noting that you doubt it means anything other than the physical aspects of one's sex (hormones and surgery) and what you cited regarding what transsexuality refers to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nope, never said that. Now who's putting words in whose mouth? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  The receipts are above. If you felt that the term meant anything else, you would not have argued what you argued, including regarding me providing sources that I can very well provide. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  So we've gone from putting words in others' mouths to simple mind-reading? I feel fairly sure that if I made a remark like "If you felt X, you would not have argued Y", it would be called condescending and uncivil. And rightly so. Very amusing, I must admit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (edited 01:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC))

  So we're to play dumb then? Okay. And as for condescending, we both know that I can point to all the times you've condescended to me and I told you to stop (including on your talk page). And putting words in others' mouths is your game. My "07:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)" post is not something that I consider condescending. But you are clearly free to view it how you want to. And, no, I would not point to WP:Civil. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Now we are definitely approaching incivility, not to mention WP:ABF and WP:GRUDGE territory. Regarding sources, the first source I cited, Britannica, says, "Transsexuality [is a] variant of gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex." Nowhere does it state that transsexuality "only ever refer[s] to physical alterations", hormones, or surgery. So I really have no idea what this line of argument is driving at. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Your "Now we are definitely approaching incivility, not to mention WP:ABF and WP:GRUDGE territory." commentary is laughable. You are one to talk. Pot Meet Kettle. And since I stated "we're to play dumb then", I guess I'm being uncivil to myself as well. You can keep playing. But, like I noted, the receipts are above for everyone to see. Everyone can see you stating that you "won't hold [your] breath waiting for sources saying transsexuality means something entirely different, because [you're] pretty sure they don't exist." And if you think stating "entirely different" is supposed to be some out for you, it's not. I was very clearly stating that transsexuality does not only refer to the physical, and can refer to being transgender in general (namely social aspects of being trans), while you kept quoting things about the physical and insisting that this is all it's about. The wording "gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex" is what the topic of transgender in general means. Well, except for when cisgender cross-dressers and cisgender drag queens are counted, and when considering what type of non-binary person someone happens to be. Being transgender is usually about a person having a gender identity that does not match their assigned sex (and gender)/that person identifying as the sex (and gender) they feel that they are. And now you want us to believe you were arguing otherwise with regard to your view of what transsexuality can mean? No. One of my points has been that Wikipedia does not need two articles about "gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex." Transsexual is a subset of transgender (as made clear in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles). We present it as being about the physical (primarily anyway). But when one uses the term transsexuality, it's a little looser than just stating "transsexual." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Your own words don't mean what you say they mean. "Social aspects of being trans[gender]" is not the same as "being transgender in general". The former is specific, while the latter is, yes, general. Transsexuality refers to the state of being transsexual. Basic English grammar, again. Nowhere have I insisted it's "all about" physical aspects/alterations. You appear to be imagining things. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  LOL. You state stuff like "You appear to be imagining things" and then have the nerve to talk about civility? Get real. Sometimes I really want to know if you make these silly arguments on purpose to keep things going. Transgender refers to the physical, psychological, and the social. So can transsexuality. That is the topic of transgender in general, not just one out of three. What is so hard to grasp about that? You cannot make people think that you were arguing something else when making comments like you "won't hold [your] breath waiting for sources saying transsexuality means something entirely different, because [you're] pretty sure they don't exist" and quoting things about the physical. You are the one who quoted the following from the Wikipedia article: "transsexual has generally been used to refer to the subset of transgender people who desire to transition permanently to the gender with which they identify ... transsexuality may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex, while transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition." And you made sure to bold the physical as distinguished from the psychological/social...and then stated "my bolding."

  Looking again. Yep, right there in your "03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)" post. You were sure focused on physical sex. Guess I imagined that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I never denied transsexuality refers to "the physical, psychological, and the social". I even provided a source that says as much. The statement "transsexuality may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex" does not mean that social & psychological aspects are excluded. More does not mean all or only. You are accusing me of saying things I did not say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  I couldn't care less what more you have to state on this topic, especially after this stunt, as if I needed that posted to my talk page. My "discussion" with you on this matter is over. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's fine. But I feel the need to point out that when one uses the term transsexuality, it's a little looser than just stating 'transsexual' is nonsensical. The former is a noun created by adding the suffix -ity to the latter. It therefore means the state or condition of being transsexual. See #Isms, -itys, -ics, and null forms below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  To everyone else, the above editor coming back several days later to get the last word while pointing to a section I'm obviously already aware of partly proves my point by highlighting "state or condition." I am laughing hard right now. Carry on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  Splendid; I'm very gratified to be able to inspire such merriment. But how does transsexuality being the "state or condition" of being transsexual prove anything about the former being a "looser" term than the latter? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  Less outdated or demeaning term? And what would that be? If the point is that is what is being done here, I see no evidence that "transsexuality" is better than "transsexual". Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Just not "transsexualism", I would hope. That implies it's a doctrine, faction, practice, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended meta-commentary

@SMcCandlish: Crossroads was replying to my 3:23, 24 November comment regarding Transgender. Obviously we wouldn't change that title to Transsexualism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) I know. I'm just reinforcing the point that transsexualism is a poor choice (in a thread in which some people have suggested it's effectively synonymous), while I'm tacitly agreeing with 'no evidence that "transsexuality" is better than "transsexual"'.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Transsexualism is a poor choice because the word suggests a kind of ideology. That doesn't have much to do with the reasons for favoring transsexuality over transsexual. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC) You're repeating my own viewpoint back at me, so I'll take this as indication that the misunderstanding has ended. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) I'm saying that the reasons for disfavoring transsexualism don't apply to transsexuality. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC) And ...? You're arguing against a position no one has advocated. I'll try this again, since "the misunderstanding has ended" was obviously over-optimistic. If you're in a group of friends all trying to decide what to go eat, and among the choices mentioned at one point or another are burritos, Chinese food, and sushi, and it's mostly coming down to Chinese or sushi, one might indicate a lean toward Chinese but also inject "As long as it's not burritos!" – without that having any effect on why you might prefer Chinese over sushi. Is this clearer? I have to suggest that you try to spend way less time "thought-policing" other people's comments, and seeking things to have a pointless nit-pick side argument about. All it does is unnecessarily bog-down discussion and erode collegial good will. Cf. WP:BLUDGEON.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Easy, tiger. I was responding to your comment That implies it's a doctrine, faction, practice, etc. One can easily see how that might be read as a response to the arguments for transsexuality, especially with the remark that some people have suggested [they are] effectively synonymous. If that was not your intent, that's good to know. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would prefer to stay on the topic of this article, but the definition of transgender that has already been given should indicate that it's inappropriate to use in noun form. See also "GLAAD Media Reference Guide – Transgender": "Transgender should be used as an adjective, not as a noun". Transgender identity (Books • Scholar) might be a good option. Using the adjective form for either article title is confusing in that it goes against our standard practice of using nouns or noun phrases. The fact that transsexuality is unambiguously a noun (as in Causes of transsexuality) should be all the evidence we need that it's a better title for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Flyer22 Frozen covered it well. The proposer's comparison to the term "blacks" has nothing to do with this situation, and the claim of "outdated" has to do with how "transgender" is the common umbrella term nowadays; in no way is "transsexuality" to be preferred on that basis. WP:JARGON weighs against "transsexuality", as readers will tend far more to think it has to do with sexuality. "Transsexual" is a noun; see Lexico and the Oxford Learners' Dictionary. There are plenty of sources that use "transsexual" too. [1] Crossroads ^-talk- 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  The top results of that Google Scholar search all use transsexual as an adjective, not a noun. According to both your dictionary sources, transsexual as a noun refers to a person, not a generalized medical phenomenon; on that basis the lead sentence should read, "Transsexuals are people who experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex", which seems both outdated and unduly personalized. The article is about the broader phenomenon of transsexuality or state of being transsexual, not transsexuals as a group of people. The BBC News Style Guide cautions against such usage, even comparing it to the term blacks: "Use ['transsexual'] as an adjective - do not say 'transsexuals', in the same way we would not talk about 'gays' or 'blacks'" [2]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding transsexual being an outdated or demeaning term, the OED states that "Noun use (i.e. referring to transsexuals rather than transsexual people) is now often deprecated and discouraged by members of the transsexual community".(subscription required) Using transsexuality would remove any derogatory connotations or risk of confusing the adjective with the noun. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Crossroads, are you aware of any recent RS that still use "transsexual" as a noun, for reasons other than scoring political points? Because I am not aware of any. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above arguments.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments. --John B123 (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Wow. The very first sentence of the very first summary of the very first Google Scholar result for *transsexual* says: "Invisible Lives is the first scholarly study of transgendered people—cross-dressers, drag queens and transsexuals." Carlstak (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with the proposal to move Transsexual (adjective, outdated noun) to Transsexuality (noun)? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I see, the source is using transsexuals as a noun – not sure how I missed that. Still, the quoted source was published in 2000 – noun use has become much less common with time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. AFAICT pretty much all recent RS use transsexual as an adjective, and referring to a person as a transsexual or to people as transsexuals is outdated and generally considered offensive. (That's sort of beside the point, though, because the current article lede establishes the term as an adjective, so it doesn't seem like anyone would interpret the title as a noun). However, per NOUN it seems like we should move to the common-use noun form, which would be transsexuality. If people are confused about the term's inclusion of "sexuality" they can read the article. SreySros (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly, thank you. I haven't found any evidence that readers are confusing Causes of transsexuality or Scientific studies of transsexuality with topics relating only to sexual (i.e. erotic) behavior. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOUN. I haven't seen any policy-compliant rationale for the current placement of the article, whereas the proposed move target is clearly compliant. If the article were being created today, I'm sure we would use a noun. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per Sangdeboeuf and others argument regards WP:NOUN. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and as Newimpartial has noted above re WP:NOUN. This should not be a controversial move. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose per WP:CONCISE. Also arguably WP:COMMONNAME, though this may bear more research. I would suggest there's a form of WP:CONSISTENT here, too, with Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, etc., despite (see below) various differences between how these terms are applied (this one is closest to lesbian in usage patterns, and perhaps second to transgender). WP:NOUN does not apply to any of these, since they are nouns, which also happen to be adjectives. This is true of innumerable words in English. There is literally nothing at all at WP:NOUN that suggests rejecting a common and short noun in favor a longer, more obtuse one, just because the shorter one is sometimes also used as an adjective, verb, or anything else. "Per WP:NOUN" is an invalid pseudo-rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish Gay is about the term, and one option is to move Transsexual to Transsexual (below). Gay as a noun is nonstandard except when plural, and Lesbian is primarily a noun. I think Transgender clearly comes into conflict with WP:NOUN and may need discussion, but does not have problematic concerns like Transsexual. I haven't decided how to !vote, but WP:Transsexual is the WP:COMMONNAME vs Transsexuality, and Transsexual and Transgender are more broad than any simple noun phrases would be. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Reasonable point about gay being about the term. WP:NOUN does not appear to take into account whether the noun is typically not used in the singular; if it did, I believe a very large number of articles would need to be moved. (This is distinct from nouns virtually never used in singular form, e.g. scissor, which only has currency as a verb.) Transgender is also used as a noun (though more often plural, and not preferred even in that plural form). I haven't really pored over the stats, but am at least tentatively in agreement on COMMONNAME (but see someone's comment about this below; I'm not sure how well that kind of aggregate, overall usage stuff can be mapped onto RS usage). Anyway, it's possible that WP:NOUN should be revised, but it has not been, so I'm not finding "per WP:NOUN" argument above to be viable (whether I feel they "should" be or not). Given that all these articles are conceptual more than anything, I think the CONSISTENT argument is stronger than it looks at first, especially since the purpose of that and the rest of the criteria is for reader benefit, not some internal calculus of parts-of-speech usage ratios, etc. The odd one out, really, is Bisexuality; LGBT renders to "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender", in adjectival usage, but three of these also serve as nouns, and more importantly serve as the usual word for the topic/concept, while the one for B actually is "bisexuality" for the most part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Many transsexual/transgender people might dispute that there's any comparison to Gay and Lesbian, since transsexuality is a matter of sexual/gender identity, not romantic or sexual orientation. Regardless, WP:COMMONNAME also says we should stick to names in an encyclopedic register. The noun transsexual is not that. The article doesn't even use transsexual as a noun, but as an adjective. Transgender isn't an exact analogue either, since it often refers to the broader concept or topic of transgenderism, as in the chapter "Transgender and Transsexuality" from Springer's Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. The noun transsexual does not refer to the broader concept of transsexuality, but to an individual person who is transsexual. — Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  And,  SMcCandlish, the Bisexuality title is consistent with the Homosexuality and Heterosexuality titles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Flyer22_Frozen: Sure; there's more than one way to approach all these topics and how they relate to each other, and more than one kind of title consistency. And Transsexuality would fit that other pattern. I may move to "weak oppose" and stand primarily on CONCISE. Sangdeboeuf: "but to an individual person who is transsexual", right, like Lesbian. Where I'm coming from is that these terms are frequently used together, in exactly these forms, as classifiers: "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, non[-]binary, genderqueer". It's a Zeigeist thing; so WP:NATURAL and WP:RECOGNIZABLE are a factor. The only one we're not using this pattern with is Bisexuality. Maybe we should move all of them to various different names based on exactly how the terms are most often used or exactly what percentile of the article content is about which sense. But its perhaps better as group-nomination RM? It seems hard to piecemeal-move these out of an established short-noun-that's-also-an-adjective format, even if we actually wanted to. I don't think it matters much that they are different in some ways (gender identify vs. sexual preference); the real world observes these distinctions but chooses not to make much of them, and continues to group these topics under a single LGBT+ umbrella.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Plenty of reliable sources use transsexuality, as I indicated above. So there doesn't seem to be any recognizability problem there. Both nouns and adjectives may "classify"; "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender", etc. are normally used together like that in an adjectival sense; you wouldn't expect to see sources refer to a number of LGBTQs or several gays and transgenders, at least not in the kind of high-register English that encyclopedias use. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm hardly suggesting that trassexuality is unrecognizable. Rather, it's just less common and thus a bit less recognizable. My leaning oppose doesn't really hinge on this, it's just an additional factor. I do get your argument, but I find it to be too hair-splitting (bureaucratic, wikilawyering, bikesheeding, whatever). The purpose of the titles policy isn't to impose mega-rigid linguistic rules; it is to best match reader expectations. I think the prevalence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, nonbinary, genderqueer, etc. in general usage tells us clearly what those expectations are. I would buy your argument much, much more if these words could only ever be used as adjectives, but this clearly isn't true, even if specific usage patterns shift over time. Another way of saying this: I'm going with WP:IAR, because moving this to Transsexuality will not clearly be an objective improvement to the encyclopedia for our readers (and the applicable rule, WP:NOUN, isn't quite actually triggered in the first place – "close, but no cigar").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  Three of the words in that list (bisexual, nonbinary, and gay in the sense of homosexuality) aren't used as titles for their respective topics. So clearly there are differences in usage that are reflected in our article titles; the broader LGBTQ+ umbrella is mostly used for convenience and shouldn't dictate how the individual topics within it are named. Transgender can also be used as a noun for the broader concept, unlike transsexual. As SreySros and the article itself point out, transsexual as a noun is often considered offensive and outdated. Avoiding any such connotation seems like a definite improvement to me, rules or no rules. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you keep wanting to repeat the same points over and over again. I've already adjusted my stance on this, in relation to the entire discussion as a whole, am comfortable where I've landed, and am not interested in further circular argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Your point about general usage as a guide to reader expectations is basically a repetition of your point about ther being little distinction between LGBT+ umbrella topics in the real world. If you're going to make the same point twice, I'm going to respond to it twice. AFAIK, I hadn't made any arguments about the term transsexual being offensive until now. Your're free to decline to respond, but characterizing my arguments as "circular" is not accurate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Alternate suggestion: what about moving Transsexual to Transsexual, an article about the term? Gay isn't exactly analogous, but could be a model. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC) clarify Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Going by word count, only about 20% of the article currently focuses on terminology per se, with the rest being about the medical diagnosis, prevalence of transsexuality, social and cultural issues, etc. So while the term transsexual could definitely be an encyclopedic subject, the present article is largely about the broader concept, not the term. Both Transsexual and Transgender have large "Terminology" sections, with significant overlap between them. So I think there's some content forking going on as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kolya Butternut: I don't know what you mean by "moving Transsexual to Transsexual". I'm guessing there's a typo in there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    @SMcCandlish: Notice the italics indicating that the move is to an article about the term. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    I'm still not really getting it. That wouldn't be a move. I think you're suggesting a WP:SPLIT, into an article about the term and an article about transsexuality / transsexuals as a group, like Gay and Homosexuality (sorta; gay is most often applied to males, more so since ca. the 1990s). That's potentially viable, but I would probably bet money on a re-merge, because the topics are not distinct enough (compared to gay and homosexuality). At best, the "transsexual as a term/label" material would take up only reasonably sized section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    I guess it would have to be a partial merge with Transgender. The question is, is transsexual or transsexuality often used anymore except as a term of self-identity? The sections in this article which are not about the term seem to equally belong in Transgender, and the sources using the term may be out of date. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Many of the sources are about transsexual[s/ity/ism] specifically, and such content should stay here per WP:SYNTH. As this article notes, "transsexual" is a subset of "transgender". Also, I don't see the need for splitting this article into two. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Like I said, it appears that those sources are out of date. I'm not proposing splitting the article into two; I'm proposing moving Transsexual to Transsexual and moving the information unrelated to the term and identity into Transgender (if I understand what you meant by "splitting in two"). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

    I'm extremely skeptical they're all out of date, and this term is clearly not in total disuse in the literature today; it simply has a narrower meaning. If you're convinced some sources are too old to use, you can raise concerns about those specific sources. If the overall effect of doing that over time is to demonstrate that the real-world consensus on this topic has markedly shifted, then that might be a good merge cause. But what I'm seeing presently is a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on, which is in conflict with both the sources cited on this from an academic literature point of view, and sources on what people call themselves in the real world. So, it's seems to me to be a form of WP:OR argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

    Easy, tiger; you haven't seen anything of the sort. What I said is, The question is, is transsexual or transsexuality often used anymore except as a term of self-identity? The sections in this article which are not about the term seem to equally belong in Transgender, and the sources using the term may be out of date. I agree with you that Transsexual is something people call themselves in the real world. I am not convinced of anything, but it does appear to me that the medical and social science sources may be out of date, because the subject of medical transitioning, for example, is no longer as connected to the word transsexual/ity. The ICD has changed: ICD-11 has redefined gender identity-related health, replacing diagnostic categories like ICD-10’s “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder of children” with “gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood” and “gender incongruence of childhood”, respectively.[3] Things have changed quickly over the last five or so years, so again, the question is, is the term still used as currently described in this article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not uneasy; this is just off-topic. Repeat: If you're convinced some sources are too old to use, you can raise concerns about those specific sources. This stuff really has nothing to do with this RM discussion, but is a WP:V examination question (possibly with some significance for potential later merge/split/whatever discussions).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Sangdeboeuf, you're more familiar with the research than I am, what is your understanding of how the term is still used, and whether much of the content in this article actually belongs in Transgender? Is Transsexuality also an outdated term? I think it makes sense to discuss the sources before deciding where to move the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not all that familiar with the newest research; I just noticed a discrepancy between this article and the most general source material in terms of how the topic is named. The academic sources I have read, such as the "Transgender and Transsexuality" chapter, are not necessarily the most recent. My understanding is that while transsexuality has to some extent been subsumed under the transgender umbrella, there are people who do still identify as "transsexual". If anything, usage of transsexuality has gone up over time.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Abstain; I just don't see either title as being much better or worse than the other, and while WP:NOUN might lead to some slight inclination towards Transsexuality, Transsexual is several times more common of a word and there are enough exceptions to NOUN—including this article's coordinate article, Transgender—that I don't find NOUN a strong argument. (A bigger issue is that this article continues to overlap significantly with Transgender.) -sche (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Modern is several times more common than modernity. That isn't the issue. What matters is what reliable sources call the topic of the article. This article is largely about the concept/phenomenon of being transsexual. The word for that is transsexuality, just like the word for being modern is modernity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Not even a vaguely comparable case. Modern is a general-use adjective with a wide array of WP:DICDEF meanings, which very rarely actually resolve to modernity as an encyclopedia topic. (E.g.: "WP:RFC/U was an interesting experiment, but is not a part of the modern Wikipedia." Modern is most frequently used as a synonym of current or contemporary, in the latter's sense as effectively the same as current). Transsexual never has any meaning that does not pertain to transsexuality; there is a direct 1:1 correspondence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
      • It's not quite a 1:1 correspondence; the OED notes that transsexual can mean (rarely) "Existing or occurring between men and women; applicable to or suitable for members of both sexes".(subscription required) But even if there were no other use of transsexual, that doesn't mean it's a suitable title, for reasons I've expressed already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

        And more focused adjective–noun pairings besides modern–modernity exist; in many cases the adjective is more common, but still not used as the name for the topic itself, e.g. atonality, crystallinity, intertextuality, miscibility, musicality, thermostability, viscoelasticity, ... —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

        Fine; it's a 1:0.99 relationship then. The OED records every nuanced variance it can ever find evidence of, no matter how disused (nor it is always correct; spend any time on the American Dialect Society's mailing list and you'll see that. >;-). The one you cite has essentially no currency at all. So, I stand by my point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. No compelling argument has been offered for making this change, which I find tedious and unnecessary. Msnicki (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be more helpful to articulate reasons based in article titling policy why the current title is preferable, rather than simply opining that the proposal is "tedious and unnecessary". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It would be more helpful to articulate reasons why the change is preferable, rather than simply whining that you don't like my reason for opposing this silly change. Msnicki (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Policy-based reasons have been expressed already, namely that Transsexuality is unambiguously a noun, one which is in a more encyclopedic register than Transsexual. Calling the proposal "tedious" or "silly" without giving a reason amounts to saying "I don't like it". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Free clue: I'm not required to agree that what you claim are policy-based reasons are anything of the sort. "Transsexual" is also used as a noun. Please leave me alone and go pester someone else with your tedious dictionary arguments. My !vote is not changing. Get over it. Msnicki (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
          • The use of Transsexual as a noun has already been addressed in detail in the above discussion. I'll take this response as tacitly conceding that, as a noun, it is in a less formal language register than Transsexuality. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
            • You can keep repeating yourself as long as you like, but no one is buying your tedious arguments that transsexual is not a noun. You're behaving like a fool. And a total loser. Msnicki (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
              • That seems rather inappropriate. But I don't believe I've argued that Transsexual is not a noun. If I have done so by mistake, I retract the statement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

-Isms, -itys, -ics, and null forms

From a corpus linguistics point of view, all three of the terms transsexuality, transsexualism, and transsexual (purely in its role as a noun) have about the same amount of usage in English, whereas the frequency of transsexual used as an adjective dwarfs them all.

From a semantic point of view, transsexuality and transsexualism have similar meanings with some overlap, and some distinction. They diverge where the -ism can lean more to the abstract study of something, whereas the -ity leans more to attributes, or properties. These are not hard and fast rules, but here is a pair of common descriptions of these suffixes:

• -ity – state, condition, quality of being; degree
• -ism – practice of; doctrine of, theory; act, process; state, condition

Speaking strictly about my own sense of the two words, the former is broader in application, and could mean either the property of an individual, in that I could imagine a discussion about "the degree [or onset, or extent, or origin, or fact, or nature) of her transsexuality", but also about the topic outside any specific reference to a person. The -ism form seems more restricted, as although not excluded from this usage, I don't see it used as much about an individual, whereas I can see it used more readily as a general term for the study of the topic. This can be better seen in phrases such as, [studies of] "male-to-female transsexuality", where this implies to me a collective look at numerous cases of male-to-female transsexual individuals, whereas [studies of] "male-to-female transsexualism" might talk more about the general underlying theory. Again, this is just my view.

There are also some orthographic rules involved in what stems can take what prefixes, so that -al can take -ity or -ism (transsexuality and transsexualism; ditto provincial, etc.) whereas words like transvestite take only -ism (of the two; but also, transvestic).

The -ism forms, when attached to phenomena that are culturally fraught, can be problematic, because in some cases they are no longer related to "theory, act, condition", etc; e.g., racism, which begat sexism, ageism, ableism, and so on. This is a more recent connotation of -ism, and was pointed out by Flyer above, who linked to this discussion about objections to transsexualism. I don't feel that same sense of objection as mentioned in that 2016 discussion, but there are definitely a multiplicity of views about this, not to mention it's a fast-moving field. Would be interesting to hear an update from Funcrunch about their feeling about this now. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: My opinion hasn't changed since the referenced page move. Funcrunch (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: My opinion on "-ism" hasn't changed, that is. I don't have the energy to weigh in on the current page move discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, understood; thanks for your feedback. Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I note that transsexuality has increased over time, while transsexualism has decreased at about the same rate (and the noun form of transsexual has gone down as the adjective form has gone up). Case in point: the Britannica entry was originally titled "Transsexualism" (which is still reflected in the URL). The title was evidently changed to "Transsexuality" sometime between June and July 2015, leaving the text largely unchanged. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Good catch on that EB change, that's very interesting indeed. I wonder what other encyclopedias have done about this? Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I've taken the liberty of changing Isms to -isms in the subheading above, just for consistency's sake. Feel free to change it back if this is an error. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not so much an 'error', as a slight diff in emphasis, and also there's the (possible, minor) in-linking issue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Assigned sex"

From the lede: "Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex . . ."

Sex is not "assigned"; it is biologically determined by structural and functional characteristics of a person or organism, such as chromosomes, hormones and external and internal genitalia.

Gender, which is a social construct, is assigned, and may be based on a combination of biological sex and other considerations and/or expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the current language is meant to refer to the event shortly after birth when the obstetrician decides to check either male or female in a box asking the sex of the child, thus "assigning sex". Msnicki (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that WP articles follow the RS on the topic, not the prejudices opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Lack of attribution

Lots of blanket statements about "many" or "some" transsexual people without good sources. Where does all of that information come from? 46.46.193.164 (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2022

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Transsexual → Transsexuality – Revisiting this previous move request. Article titles should normally be nouns or noun phrases. However, with the recent change to the lead sentence, transsexual is explicitly used as an adjective both in the lead and the body. The article is also largely about transsexuality as a state of being, including its social and medical aspects, not just transsexual people as a group. While transsexual has been used as a noun for "transsexual person", this usage is outdated and potentially demeaning and is never used to refer to the broader phenomenon of transsexuality itself. Earlier objections to the proposed move included the following:

1. Transsexual is the more common term. This is a red herring since transsexual is often an adjective while transsexuality never is; therefore, a direct comparison is not useful. Atonal is far more common than atonality, but the latter is obviously a better title.
2. Transsexual is more concise. Another red herring, since transsexual and transsexuality mean different things; their respective brevity is moot.
3. Other terms under the LGBT umbrella can also be adjectives. However, there's no consistent pattern of using adjectives as titles within this topic area. Lesbian functions mainly as a noun. Bisexual redirects to Bisexuality, while gay men are covered at Human male sexuality. Gay and Queer are primarily about the terms themselves, not gayness or queerness per se. Intersex and Transgender are adjectives that can also be used as nouns for their respective topics; transsexual is never used this way.
4. Transsexuality might suggest the idea of sexuality, i.e. eroticism. I think this potential ambiguity is outweighed by the clear ambiguity of transsexual: does it refer to a person (outdated) or a state of being? Many scholarly sources refer to the topic as transsexuality, and the article has mentioned "transexuality" since at least 2015; I'm not aware of any readers expressing confusion about the term during that time.

Courtesy ping of users from the last discussion: @Bodney, Carlstak, Crossroads, Funcrunch, John B123, Kolya Butternut, Mathglot, Msnicki, Newimpartial, Ortizesp, -sche, SMcCandlish, SreySros, and ZimZalaBim: hopefully I didn't miss anyone. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Oppose, by useage and commonality I still think "transexual" is the COMMONNAME. I'm not sure much has changed since the last RM.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  No proof has been offered that it's the common name, only that the term itself is more commonly used. If it's the common name (which I doubt), then the lead sentence should read, Transsexuals are people who experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex ... If transsexual is being used merely as an adjective, then by definition it isn't a name. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think it is a mistake to consider this question as though only NOUN and COMMONNAME were relevant; I would point to ambiguity in conjunction with neutrality as more important in this case. The use of transsexual as a noun has become non-neutral, and the use of the word as a title is inherently ambiguous about whether a noun or an adjective is meant. "Transsexuality" has neither of these issues. Newimpartial (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, nothing has changed as far as I can see. Carlstak (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note: I've notified WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, and WikiProject Sociology of this discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. When restricting to use as a noun, transsexual is still the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think that data means what you are suggesting that it means. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    • It addresses Transsexual is the more common term. This is a red herring since transsexual is often an adjective while transsexuality never is; therefore, a direct comparison is not useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      • WP:COMMONNAME isn't defined as "the term with the most ghits in a certain database having a particular grammatical function", however, which is the way you used your data. On the other hand, ambiguity and neutrality are referenced explicitly within COMMONNAME. The argument that the word "transsexual" is ambiguous in its grammatical function, and the noun use of "transsexual" violates neutrality, isn't really addressed by your ghits visualization. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

      Both are far outweighed by transsexual as an adjective. Hence the present title is ambiguous. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agreed in general with the listed objections last time and nothing's changed. Most persuasive to me, it's simply not plausible (likely why there's no evidence) that transsexuality is more common in relevant sources than transsexual as required by WP:COMMONNAME. The same argument offered in this RM could also be made about transgender but that article's not changing either. The current redirect from transsexuality to transsexual is appropriate and sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Transgender is a special case since it's used as both as a noun for the broader phenomenon of transgenderism as well as an adjective. It also lacks the historical baggage of transsexual. Transsexuality doesn't have to be more common if it's more precise. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Points 1 and 2 in the objections list are clear policy matters, and doom this move request before it has even started. PS: Bisexuality should probably move to Bisexual to be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that these two points are clear policy matters while arguments based on WP:PRECISION and WP:NPOVTITLE are not. Anyway, doesn't COMMONNAME explicitly defer to considerations of precision and neutrality, or am I reading the third paragraph of WP:UCRN incorrectly? Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything has changed since the last discussion. --John B123 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, the last discussion saw five editors support a move, with six Oppose !votes and VAGUEWAVES on both sides, to be charitable. I would hope that we could actually discuss the relevant issues this time, like precision and neutrality. Let's not avoid the issues by exaggerating the quality of a rather marginal consensus from 2020. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    • By my counting it was 4 supporting and 7 opposed last time, but that's irrelevant. It does annoy me when people refuse to accept consensus. Unless something significant has changed, it's a waste of everybody's keep making proposals until you get the result you want. --John B123 (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      • New arguments are enumerated above. I'll leave it to others to decide if they're significant or not. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Sorry, all I see is an rehash/expansion of the previous argument. --John B123 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Then you're only looking at the Oppose !votes :p. Seriously, though, 18 months isn't a really rushed timeline to look at an issue again, particularly a poorly attended and indecisive result like this 2020 RfC (and in your counts, you didn't count the proposer as supporting their own proposal, for some odd reason. On the other hand, I suppose you were right to count the "leaning oppose" as "oppose", so it was 5-7). Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation cleanup and article state

I've just completed a citation cleanup on the article, making all of the citations consistent with Help:CS1. In the process of doing so, I discovered and tagged several citations that are in need to improvement including; 8 book citations that require pages, 2 citations that refer to older versions of ICD 10 and DSM-IV-TR and need updating, 1 section Employment issues that needs updating with case law newer than 1996, 1 citation with better source needed, and 1 citation as verification failed. Check the article for specifics.

On the whole, the article is pretty badly in need of an update. There's a number of sections that we should re-write in summary style while pointing towards specific articles that now exist for that content (eg, Gender roles and transitioning -> Gender transitioning, Psychological treatment -> Sex reassignment therapy#Psychological treatment)). We also have a section that was transcluded from Transgender and has not been kept in sync with the state of that article. As such, I'd suggest that we should go through each section, one at a time to bring it up to date with current content relating to transsexuality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I had been working on improving the article, but am a bit stymied by the imprecise definition and usage of the term. Depending on how its used, there is a lot of overlap with transgender. I've been noodling on how to better clarify the scope of the article. So far I'm leaning towards this page being more medicalist, and the transgender page being less so, but beyond that the literature isn't particularly helpful since terminology has changed pretty fast. Since some folks even see transsexual as a slur, most new sources aren't really using it, which further stymies efforts to improve this page.

On a different note, which section are you saying was transcluded but not kept in sync? The historical section is currently in part transcluded using templates, which means it is exactly what the transgender page says. Do you mean a section was copied over from transgender and they diverged? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I can sympathise with the difficulties on definition. This Ngram shows how usage of the two terms intersected over the last sixty years. At an individual level, and speaking purely anecdotally from my experiences on social media, I find that in broad terms, the trans people who call themselves "transsexual" tend to be either older people who transitioned more than two decades ago, or transmedicalists. There are of course exceptions to either group, but they seem few and far between. I'll not comment on the transphobes who use the term, other than to say they overwhelmingly do so in a derogatory manner.

The diverging section is Transsexual#Historical understanding. If you compare the text there with Transgender#History which is what the {{Section}} template is using, you can see the two are not in sync. According to the text at {{Section}} this appears to have been broken since sometime around or after June 2012. The text at Help:Transclusion doesn't even mention {{Section}} and instead says you should use {{excerpt}} at WP:SELTRANS. Even with it being out of sync, it's also not transcluded properly as the first two sentences Transgender people are known to have existed since ancient times. A wide range of societies had traditional third gender roles, or otherwise accepted trans people in some form. However, a precise history is difficult because the modern concept of being transgender, and gender in general, did not develop until the mid-1900s. Historical understandings are thus inherently filtered through modern principles, and were largely viewed through a medical lens until the late 1900s. are written in the source of this article, and are not coming from the transclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed for last paragraph in intro

"Understanding of transsexuality has changed very quickly in the 21st century. Many 20th century medical beliefs and practices around transsexuality are now considered deeply outdated. It was once classified as a mental disorder and subject to extensive gatekeeping by the medical establishment, and remains so in much of the world."

No citation provided. This reads like a reddit comment. 47.220.158.216 (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"She points to the medical community's long love of now outdated theories such as autogynephilia." Only source that says Autogynephilia is outdated is Seraonos own book i suggest updating it to reflect that Transhistory (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually the text is correct. The only reference to autogynephilia in the DSM-5 and DSM-5-R is in the chapter on transvestic disorder, where "with autogynephilia" is a specifier. The ICD-11 makes no mention of it anywhere. Aside from a handful of proponents of Blanchard's theories, research has moved on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead

BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 The lead as it stood before your removal read Understanding of transsexuality has changed very quickly in the 21st century. Many 20th century medical beliefs and practices around transsexuality are now considered deeply outdated. It was once classified as a mental disorder and subject to extensive gatekeeping by the medical establishment, and remains so in much of the world. I'm not sure what part of it you are saying is unverifiable and why. While I agree that the article could overall use better sourcing, and I am working on that, I don't see how this paragraph is so wrong it has to be removed right now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This section should not have ever been added to the article. It was completely unsourced for a period of time, and the recently added "sources" were wholly unsatisfactory. Simple single-page memos about gender dysphoria do not at all support the claims being made in that section of that lead. Websites (such as Hornet.com) also serve a terrible sources. Hornet is an openly pro-LGBT sensationalist news media body, whose own mission statement, according to their "about" section is: "Amplifying the radical, affirmative power of the queer community...", making it a pretty appalling choice of source for an article about transsexuals. It is comparable to using Breitbart as source for the lead of the US Republican Party article.

I suggest not re-adding this section to the lead unless genuine, relevant, and relatively unbiased sources can be provided to support them. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to type this up myself. I don't agree with the characterisation of the four sources in this edit summary. Source 1 is not a "memo about gender dysphoria", and is instead an explanation from the APA as to why they reclassified gender dysphoria away from a mental health disorder. A statement from the APA is usually pretty high up the WP:MEDRS pyramid. Source 2 is a secondary source discussing source 1. While not MEDRS in and of itself, it does help us contextualise source 1 from a from a media perspective, though there's almost certainly stronger sources for this. Source 3 is weird, it's just a link to the WPATH website and not a specific page on it. That said, I would never categorise WPATH as a "non-academic sensationalist website". Is there a specific page on WPATH's site that was meant to be linked? And source 4 appears to be a trans support provider based in New South Wales. While they will be biased, again I don't think they are a "sensationalist website". Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

With regards to stronger sourcing for the paragraph, Source 1 is fine. We can replace source 2 with Scientific American which discusses briefly the change made by the APA in 2013. This paper by the authors of the ICD-11 explain why the WHO reclassified it, and is a MEDRS. The reclassification is also supported in the Scientific American article linked previously, and in this article by Human Rights Watch (they are a RS). These four sources should be sufficient to support the removed text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was already writing an explanation and talk page subsection explaining why I removed that section of the lead, when you published this. That section made some questionable claims that were completely unsourced. You then re-added it with an appalling choice of sources, so I re-reverted the edit. "Lead" sections of article are not exempted from requiring sources, and sources must actually pertain to the claims being made in that section of the article. Sources should ideally also lack overt bias. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 But I fail to see your underlying concern about the text itself. Leads are generally unsourced, since they summarize the body of the article. My hasty source finding was perhaps not perfect, but I fail to see how the content itself is incorrect. Understanding of the trans experience has changed greatly in the 21st century. This can be seen by simply comparing any source on the matter in 2000 to one you read today. It is further exemplified by the revision of the ICD, and the general prominence of the topic in the culture wars. Medical practices of the 20th century, such as the Benjamin scale, ideas about autophilia/gynophilia, conception of it as a mental illness, and so on, are no longer best practices. The fact that it is subject to gatekeeping is supported by the source on gatekeeping. I just happened to pull the first source I found, if you have a better source, that'd be helpful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)