Talk:Trans woman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Tags

Given the newly minted consensus, I'm removing the 'POV' tag from the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Spitballing expansion: trans women in media

This article could be expanded with a section on trans women in media, covering trends in the representation of trans women in media (i.e. stereotypes), and statistics on the un-/under-representation of trans women in media (as characters and as actresses). When I have time, I will try to draft something, but mention it here in case anyone wants to help or beat me to it, or argue it would be a bad idea. -sche (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Spitballing expansion: trans women and feminism

This article could be expanded with a section on that topic, with links to and short summaries of Trans feminism and Feminist views on transgender topics. As above, I will try to draft something when I have time. -sche (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing the body in the lead

The article is currently tagged for improvement because the "lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents". Here is an attempt at summarizing the parts of the article which are not currently summarized in the lead:

Trans women may experience gender dysphoria and may transition, especially by hormone replacement therapy and sometimes sex reassignment surgery, which can bring immense relief and even resolve gender dysphoria.

Trans women may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or none of the above.

Trans women face a vast amount of discrimination (termed transmisogyny, a subset of transphobia), including in employment and access to housing, as well as physical and sexual violence and hate crimes, including from partners (especially cisgender men); discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color.

Feedback welcome: is this a good summary of what the body says? Should it be added to the lead? -sche (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That would greatly improve the lead --John B123 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've added it. :) The body itself could use expansion in some areas, two of which I've highlighted in sections below. -sche (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination section

"Discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color, who experience the intersection of racism and transphobia. Multiracial, Latina, Black and American Indian trans women are twice to more than three times as likely as White trans women to be sexually assaulted in prison." cites a "NTDS Report" (In quotes because I copy pasted the citation name.) But I searched that source for "intersection" the word racism is mentioned 4 times in the entire 228 page report, and not once is it used as a term to describe the correlation between racism and transphobia in regards to sexual assault in prisons. Also, the paper does actually give a graph. So "Multiracial, Latina, Black and American Indian trans women are twice to more than three times as likely as White trans women to be sexually assaulted in prison." Is unnecessarily vague because the actual victims per cohort are specified by the report, "twice to more than three times" is vague because it doesn't describe the data shown directly, are Black transwomen three times more likely? Or are they twice? and "Discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color, who experience the intersection of racism and transphobia." is not in citation given. ShimonChai (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with specifying what the number would be for each cohort. To me the intersection line seems like a reasonable way to restate the first key finding given in the NTDS summary "Discrimination was pervasive throughout the entire sample, yet the combination of anti-transgender bias and persistent, structural racism was especially devastating." If you want to reword the intersection line to be more similar to how it is stated in the source though feel free.Rab V (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

“They may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or none of the above.”

does this really belong in the lede? it doesn't seem directly related to being trans to me. gender and sexuality are two very different things.

also, if we're mentioning these three, why not asexuality? —mountainhead / ? 01:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's there because, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article and the article currently has a "Sexual orientation" section. The section was bigger than that, but was trimmed. Furthermore, people commonly conflate or confuse sexuality and gender aspects, especially with regard to transgender topics. Many people think that trans women are automatically exclusively sexually attracted to cisgender men. And so noting variety is an important aspect for the lead on those grounds as well. Many or most readers only read the leads of Wikipedia articles. If you want to add "asexual" to the lead, feel free. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

fair. I've added asexual in both spots. —mountainhead / ? 21:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

US-centrism

I feel this article would benefit greatly from a perspective regarding the treatment of trans women that isn't about america in particular. the discrimination section especially is basically 100% US issues; it's disproportionate.

american studies and reputable sources are more widespread, sure, but at this point much of the article is about "trans women in the US" more than it is about trans women in general. imo this might warrant a separate article. —mountainhead / ? 21:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "trans women in the US" would merit an article separate from this one and other already-existing articles like Transgender rights in the United States, but I agree that this article could use more content on other countries. Transgender rights in the United Kingdom and LGBT rights in India have some references (and referenced content) we could use for expanding the 'Discrimination' section (especially with information on discrimination protections), and it shouldn't be hard to find RS to expand the 'Violence' section with — in particular someone could probably write a whole subsection on Brazil, the way there is currently one on the US. I will work on this if I have time. -sche (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the transgender rights in the US article you linked. but yeah, I feel much of what's in these sections would be more appropriate there. —mountainhead / ? 22:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

Ccangull (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC) In Turkey, Trans Women’s access to justice problems starts before criminal justice system. Trans women are considered “guilty” because of their identity. In Turkey, having a LGBT identity is not a crime, but in everyday life, discrimination against LGBT community becomes concrete especially against trans women. Research shows that trans women are marginal of marginals. Family refusal, bullying and exclusion, discrimination in business life force trans women lead risky life-styles. Thus, for trans women who are perpetrators of some incidents, there is a correlation between these incidents and discrimination in their life. The main reasons of their acts causing imprisonment are life safety threats and lack of means of living.  

Violence against trans women is legitimized, but being trans is reason for remission even in homicide cases. Cases in which trans women are perpetrators result faster. In other words, trans women’s crimes result faster than the other people in Turkey.

They are mistreated by the police in police stations before their lawsuit process. These maltreatments include incidents of not being taken seriously, unanswered complaints about the police’s mistreats, public defender’s absence, the discriminatory attitudes of the judges etc. These are the trans women’s problems for access to justice.Ccangull (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)http://www.kaosgldernegi.org/yayindetay.php?id=184

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Remove the link to "woman" in the opening the sentence and replace with either "person" or "man". It is biologically incorrect to refer to a transgender woman as a woman. The article as currently drafted is scientifically wrong. Transwomen are transwomen. Women are women. They are different. And there's nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia should support science and facts, not political language. Hopefully this suggested edit will be approved. Chrestomathy37 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• rejected — this lede section has been thoroughly vetted. scroll up a little and you'll come across a rather long discussion that resulted in this consensus.

you're also completely missing the point. this is a strawman. "woman" and biological female are entirely different concepts. nobody is saying trans women are biological females. actual medical professionals will disagree with you. —mountainhead / ? 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

However, of course, not all academics believe that trans women are women. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms The above RfC concluded that there was no consensus on the best lede. Userwoman (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There was also, however, a general repudiation of Userwoman's POV on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination against racial minorities

I removed part of the lede which said that trans women who are racial minorities face more discrimination due to the intersectionality of transmisogyny and racism. It certainly may be true, but we'd need to clarify which racial minorities in which countries are being referred to. It was then added back by PeterTheFourth who noted that in the 4th paragraph of the Criticism section, it clarifies that US trans women of color (indigenous, black, latina) are the ones facing discrimination. I'd be amenable to such language in the lede, but it needs to be specific. Further, that's only speaking to the experiences of trans women in one specific country--obviously the scope of the article is global, so it could be too US-centric to put that in the lede. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The wording originally stated "discrimination is particularly severe towards non-white trans women, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism. " I changed "non-white" to "racial minorities" in an edit I made yesterday, to be consistent with a global perspective, since the article as a whole is not specific to any one location. Obviously, a trans woman who, as an example, is Asian and lives in Japan would not be expected to face discrimination for being non-white in her own country.

I do, however, agree that it should be sourced and/or further clarified, and better specified in what parts of the world it is relevant. Vontheri (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made by ModerateMike729 who had changed "racial minorities" to "of color" with the edit summary "per talk". What talk was being referred to? This here is the only discussion about this that I am aware of. I would be fine with something like "discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color in the United States [or where ever it applies], who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism." But saying just "of color" or "non-white" without specifying where fails to be consistent with a global perspective. Also a citation is needed. Vontheri (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that 'of colour' is a better term than 'racial minority', which is more specific and less euphemism-y. If we want the article to be less US-centric, 'of colour' is a term that we should avoid. How would we feel about this proposed wording (inserted words in bold):

[...] discrimination is particularly severe in some countries towards trans women who are members of a racial minority, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism.

We don't specifically need references in the lede if the information is contained & referenced in the body of the article, and I personally think avoiding references in the lede produces a better looking article. In my proposed wording, if there was a better word than 'some' that didn't have the implication of a certain percent of countries (some vs many, etc) that would be good. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My point is that we can't claim a "global perspective" if we're only citing data/sources about the US. We can either specify that we mean trans women of color in the United States, which I admittedly should've included in my edit, or we can remove the sentence entirely. But in its current form, we're trying to put a global perspective in the lede that's not in the body, so I'm inclined to agree with just avoiding it in the lede entirely. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "of colo(u)r" is not the most optimal word choice. I would be fine with the sentence suggested by PeterTheFourth, "discrimination is particularly severe in some countries towards trans women who are members of a racial minority, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism." as long as there is a reference for which countries somewhere in the article. (Perhaps "certain countries" would be better than "some countries"?) I would also be fine with just taking the sentence out of the introduction if that is preferable. Vontheri (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Either is alright with me but I lean more toward just taking it out of the introduction entirely. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

[For the UK,] I can find Stonewall research and a GIRES document saying LGBT POC face racism even within LGBT communities, and that trans ones face transphobia, but I'm not sure if there's data specifically about trans women of colour facing both intersectingly. I also spotted this i-D article on black LGBT people in Brazil, but again, it doesn't get into TWOC specifically. I'll try to look into this some more when I have more time. -sche (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Contradicts the articles "woman" and "female"

(This issue is closely related to the issue raised in the previous section.)

The intro paragraph says that a "trans woman" is a type of woman. That article in turn says that women are female. That article in turn defines female as, well, the common biological definition. But trans women are not female according to that definition, leading to an internal contradiction. Wikipedia could change its definition of "female" from the biological definition (which would be very strange and need some major sourcing I guess), or change the article "woman" to not define women as female people (again quite strange as that's the definition you'll find in any dictionary, encyclopedia, and from any person you ask on the street), or clarify in this article that the issue of whether "trans women" are or aren't actually women is a point of political debate.

As it stands, Wikipedia simply contradicts itself / implicitly makes the false claim that trans women have female sex. TaylanUB (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The intro for woman includes that the term is also used to refer to a person's gender identity. Does that not resolve the contradiction? JB525 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that part. I guess it could solve the contradition, though it's kind of unclear what it means to say. A wording like "some people may also be considered women because of their gender identity" would be clearer, though that's a change to that article and I'll discuss it there. As far as this article goes, it may be useful to mention in the intro that this alternative definition of woman applies, because if one simply follows the initial parts of the intros one would be led to believe that trans women are female. :-) TaylanUB (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also: it may be better not to state that trans women are women, but that they are considered to be women by some people, based on gender identity or social presentation. (Also see: the recommendation I just made in the talk page of the Woman article.) TaylanUB (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems the woman article isn't going to be changed. But there was some agreement during the relevant discussion that the current intro of that article doesn't say that trans women are a type of woman. In line with this, the current intro should be changed so as not to imply that trans women are female or otherwise confuse readers. TaylanUB (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a few suggestions. The parenthesis mentioning alternative spellings that exists in the original is removed for brevity; it would be added back if one of these is adopted.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but professes a female gender identity.

A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman, without being female.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but is accepted as a woman by some members of society because of her professed gender identity or social presentation.

A trans woman is a person who is accepted as a woman by some members of society because of her professed gender identity or social presentation, despite not being female.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but is accepted as a woman by some members of society.

A trans woman is a person who is accepted as a woman by some members of society, despite not being female.

Just say "A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman but who was assigned male at birth." That's totally neutral, it doesn't say that she is or isn't a woman in some objective sense, it just says accurately that she identifies as a woman. All the other attempts above try to assert that she is not a woman compared to the current version that says she is a woman. My suggestion is neutral. It avoids the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.113.110 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"assigned" is not neutral, and on any less touchy subject, would be considered a weasel word. It's a persuasive spin word. "A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman but who was born biologically not female." would be accurate and neutral. 172.76.140.54 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) DD

This suggestion (who identifies as a woman) is obviously correct to maintain a neutral POV. The existing article is both opinionated "is a woman" and contradicts the woman/female articles as this suggestion correctly points out. My edit to implement this suggestion was reverted by EvergreenFir with the comment "See RfC and other talk page comments." But the links to an RfC on this page lead to nothing, so it does not appear to exist currently. And few of the talk page comments suggest maintaining the current opinionated and contradictory state of affairs. CSMR (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@CSMR: Here you go: Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we please leave a header on this talk page to prevent this conversation from looping? ShimonChai (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It's clear that there is consensus there or here, which means we have gridlock. At some point in the history an NPOV lead tag was removed without comment. This does not conform to the discussion so should be reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans_woman&diff=next&oldid=862930148 . Since the removal doesn't follow the guidance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove) I will reinstate it. CSMR (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The RFC represents discussion and consensus on this exact issue. Thus condition 1 for removing the tag is met. Not every editor will always agree with every RFC, doesn't mean we need NPOV warnings on articles. Rab V (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"A trans woman is a biological male whose emotional constitution presents as female." I am trying to get away from the word "identifies." That sounds too much like it is a choice or learned, which it is not. I would also like too avoid being disingenuous or confusing about the person's biological constitution because there is no choice in that matter either. Moreover, being born biologically as male and having a female personalty should not be construed negatively.2601:204:DB00:1C63:7140:C829:DCEB:83DB (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You should check out the conclusions of the months-long #RfC on introduction. Thisparticular thread is more than a year old. --Equivamp - talk 02:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That's all I've got for now. Note how there's three basic variations, each with a pair of sub-variants that put the "not female" part first, and last, respectively. (I thought it may be more kind to put that at the end so as not to emphasize it first, so added such a sub-variant to all basic variants.) I personally like the first variant for its simplicity, though it may not represent all trans women, as I believe some don't define their trans identity on the notion of gender identity. The third option is an attempt at fixing that, but maybe it's too long? The fifth option is a different simplistic approach that I just came up with; not sure how good. Feel free to recommend more. TaylanUB (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice: I've just noticed that this page is "semi-protected" rather than fully protected (I'm a relative Wikipedia noob...) so I can just edit the article myself after all. Still, as I've started the discussion, I'll wait a bit if there's any feedback before I make a change, so there isn't too much back-and-forth editing if somebody disagrees with my choice. TaylanUB (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please realize how rude it is to say trans women are not female. It uses the point of view that transgenderism is just playing make believe. Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Why should it be considered “rude” to point out the hard, scientific truth?  Why should any sane person feel compelled to play along with an insane falsehood, and to treat that falsehood as truth, on the basis that adhering to the truth would be considered “rude&rdqquo;?  As a matter of hard, scientific fact, a “trans woman” is male, and is not, in any meaningful way, female.  No amount of chemical or surgical mutilation can change this, and neither can any amount of politically-correct shaming and intimidation aimed at those who prefer to give greater credence to hard science than to the insane delusions of those who are mentally-defective. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Bob, your comments contradict all recent medical, scientific and legal scholarship. Do you have 21st century citations to back up your claims, or are they all anally sourced? Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see the article female. It's a biological classification, and trans women by definition don't fall under it. Why is it be rude to point this out? TaylanUB (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand gender identity. It's important to avoid looking at transgenderism the easy way. Please do research to understand exactly what it is; it's a serious birth condition. The statement that trans women are not biologically female, taken literally, implies that transgenderism doesn't exist biologically. Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have 1) any reliable sources for the claim that all or most of transgender women and men share (group wise; one for trans women one for trans men) an inborn biological condition that invariably (without the effect of society) leads to the development of their transgender identity, and 2) any reliable sources offering a definition of female and male that includes said pair of inborn conditions in those definitions? Because from what I can tell, there is neither a scientific conclusion on the cause of transgender identity, nor would it be automatically included in the definition of "female" and "male" if it did, as these are so far defined through genetics, reproductive anatomy and not for instance any aspect of a person's neurology. TaylanUB (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Somebody besides me and TaylanUB, please reveal your opinions on this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS. We have WP:OR about one person's views on gender, sex, and the intersection thereof. I have little interest in engaging. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(de-indent) Apparently the female article is pretty much unsourced, which I only notice now. It's not difficult to at least find online dictionary sources for the given definition though. (I'd dig up an encyclopedia or biology textbook, but I'm in Germany so won't be able to find English sources easily.) As a bare minimum, I just added a citation to the initial definition of female, using the online version of the Oxford dictionary. So, given there are verifiable definitions of "female" that exclude trans women, and assuming there are none that include them, I think it should be safe to state that trans women aren't female? TaylanUB (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated those assumptions are reasonable. Moreover, we are not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). We don't define or discuss topics based on the OED. Additionally, the term female is contested more generally; some argue it should be used only in terms of biological sex, but common parlance and other sources use it interchangeably with woman and to refer to gender. (See Sex-gender distinction) Provide some sources for your broad statements please. I can tell you that the most recent social science literature doesn't discuss trans women in terms of "biologically male but gender as a woman" but rather as an assigned-male at birth person who is a woman. The focus now is about sex assignment and transgender people are those who do not identify with that assigned gender/sex. ([1], [2], [3], [4]) EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Assigned" ? Nature and chromosomes assigned a penis to the individual. There is such a thing as biological sex. This article should not taking a position that confuses biological sex with psychologically identified gender. 172.76.140.54 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) DD

Well, that's the most nonsensical argument I've seen yet on this page (and there have been a few). If nature (let's say, in the form of an attacking hyena) unassigned a penis to an individual, would their sex have changed? If a congenital condition didn't assign them one in the first place, are they necessarily not male? Anatomical features do not necessarily correspond to a person's sex or gender, and the distinction you're drawing between "biological sex" and "psychologically identified gender" (got a reliable source for that term, btw?) is not nearly as clear-cut as you might think it is.

Look, I get that some of what you're reading in this article and elsewhere may be new and confusing; there's a learning curve involved, and old misconceptions die hard. My own understanding of the topic of gender has evolved significantly since my "knowledge" about it was first challenged in a university course many years ago. It would be really helpful if people wouldn't keep showing up here presenting nuggets of received wisdom and proclaiming them to be irrefutably true. I agree with EvergreenFir; this is becomimg tendentious. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious indeed. Those arguing in favor of including wording specifically asserting that trans-women "are not physically women but identify as women psychologically" seem to have forgotten the fact that the brain, and all of its processes are also biological. To argue using Biological Determinism - saying a trans-woman is not a woman because her body possesses biologically male genitalia and that's BIOLOGY is to paint oneself into a corner. She feels female. She knows herself to be female. And a feeling/knowing are just as much biological processes as anything genitals can do. She has, it would seem, a biologically female brain. Why does genitalia trump the brain as the arbiter of gender in the minds of the "Not Female" crowd? I'm going to use the first of two thought experiments to drive home my point. Imagine: If brain transplants were possible, and you took the brain of a cisgender woman whose body had been crushed and popped it into the head of a body with male primary and secondary sex organs, would she suddenly be a "biological" man. Perhaps to an absurdly strict dualist, but I think common sense, science, and everyone who knew her, would tell us she was a woman who had ended up in a man's body. For comparison, what about taking the brain of a tall man and putting it in the body of a shorter man. Is he a tall man in a short man's body? No. He's short. Because height, unlike gender, is not determined primarily by the brain. A bit extreme as a thought excercise, but worth considering if you don't believe the brain a sexual organ powerfully relating to gender.

Also,as has been pointed out over and over, these same interlocutors confuse and conflate sex and gender in almost every post.

Lastly, and I promise after this I'm done. Don't buy the brain as arbiter of gender? Let's play another game: The assertion has been thrown around that gender is not assigned at birth, but inherent and based on genetalia. What if a baby girl was born, had typical healthy female sex organs, was raised until she could feed herself from the absurdly plentiful and nearby food sources, and then her village died. As she grows, what does she become? Female? Certainly she has the genitalia and eventually the secondary sex characteristics of a female. But a woman? A "girl" as the birth records would have it? Absolutely not. With no one to teach her gendered behavior, i.e. ASSIGN HER A GENDER, she wouldn't have the slightest conception of womanhood.

So, the genitals are biological, the brain is just a leak that lets the feminists get in? Well that sounds silly. Take out a woman's brain & she remains a woman. Guess it's biology. I know! It must be that a woman's labiae or possibly her Fallopian tubes teach her to wear certain clothing, prefer certain activities, and accept being talked over at work. Why, that feral girl? She'll be June Cleaver when she grows up! Oh, or wait, not June Cleaver, a wild un-gendered human who only thinks about survival, and doesn't dream of Prince Charming because she doesn't know what a man is just like she doesn't know what a woman is. And so there you have it. Gender is assigned at birth. That cleft that will someday become a vagina? Those lumps of inert tissue that will, years hence, make this baby capable of child-bearing? They make her a "girl" the way putting her in a lil baby-tutu makes her an Olympic figure skater. She's more likely to end up skating if you buy her the equipment. And she's more likely to end up a woman if she's born with the reproductive necessities. The genitals are predictive, not prescriptive. Resorting to "but biology" ignores, well, biology. Not to mention the basic psychological fact that all behaviors are learned and without women as roll models, feral girl from thought experiment two is straight up not going to invent and then insist on wearing kitten heels...at least until it's time for wedge sandals! Great for fending off ocelots while still showing some leg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klonopin Fox (talk • contribs) 14:19, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

The idea that a transwoman are women remains a minority view, although passionately held by some to be sure. Wikipedia which aspires to be a neutral source should note both facts. If a transwoman is to be called a type of women that is essentially to change the language. Jeremy (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works based on reliable sources, not unsubstantiated assertions. And to anticipate one likely move, polling supporting the assertion that "The idea that a transwoman are women remains a minority view" would bear no more weight on the reality of gender than the increasing belief in flat-earthism in the U.S. would have on the shape of the globe - it is interesting as a fact about public opinion, perhaps, but not as a description of reality according to the most reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A fad among American liberals isn't a "description of reality"... This section is more an illustration on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to ideology than anything. It should at least contain a section of gender critical views. The nature of an encyclopedia is that it reflects the intellectual distortions of its time, I get that, and an open access encyclopedia perhaps more than others. But this page will become an embarrassment as the fad passes as fads do. Jeremy (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't live in the US, and gender identity and gender expression are both legally protected rights where I live. My sense is that, given all the evidence, enforced gender binarism will turn out to be the fad. Anyway, I will continue to side with the reliable sources, thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully support trans rights and view transwomen as being "real" women, but in the interest of neutrality, the article should have at least a small section explaining the fact that there are those who disagree. To not include that perspective is violating the policy of neutrality. Including the perspective does not mean endorsing it. Vontheri (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We have a "Discrimination" section which covers transphobia already. ShimonChai (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That section says nothing about other points of view. Describing discrimination is not the same as describing the view of those who feel that gender is determined by chromosomes or birth genitals or such things. That point of view certainly deserves a place in the article, described in the way that it is believed as those who believe it, without advocating for its truth or falsity, but described factually as those who believe it say it, without bias in either direction. Counter-arguments to that perspective should also be included. All points of view that are notable should be factually described, and given due weight. Vontheri (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the discrimination section is about discrimination in housing and violence and such things. It is certainly possible for someone to believe that trans women are not "real" women without denying them housing or employment or being violent towards them. The idea that they aren't "real" women is not a perspective that I agree with, but it's certainly a perspective that exists, and it is certainly notable enough to be described. It should be described neutrally, and not in the way that many of those who have posted on this talk page who hold that perspective seem to want to describe it. Vontheri (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is primarily one of sourcing. I've looked at what's out there, and there aren't really any reliable sources on gender identity (and this article covers a specific gender identity) that take the view that Trans women aren't women. Those taking such a view are either FRINGE activists, non-specialists, outdated references, or specialists working in related but distinct domains such as reproductive biology. If there are any gender-woke sources that take the perspective you describe, Vontheti, I think we all would like to see what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 18:20, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

As it is now, the article, as well as all related articles that I've read, make no mention at all that there are those with that viewpoint. I can't imagine how it is not a notable fact that there are a significant number of people who think like that. If you define "non-fringe" as being "gender-woke", then obviously you will not be able to find any references from that perspective. Regardless, even if only "gender-woke" sources are the only sources to be considered non-fringe, I'm sure there must be references from "gender-woke" perspectives that acknowledge the existence of the viewpoint of transwomen not being "real" women. A source doesn't have to actually be advocating for a certain point of view to acknowledge that the point of view exists.

An analogy would be the section "Social and cultural responses" in the article for Evolution. Especially note the sentence "While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as theistic evolution, there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their religions and who raise various objections to evolution." (with three references following for that statement.) The fact that there are people who do not except evolution as being reality, despite the scientific consensus being that it is reality, is certainly notable. Noting it does not mean endorsing it. The Evolution article would be a good model, I think, for how this article should be: The non-standard viewpoint is mentioned and described, and given due-weight relative to the majority of the article which is describing evolution as it is viewed by scientists. Surely there have been, for example, scientific polls conducted into opinions of people regarding how many hold the view that transwomen are actual women and how many hold the view that they are not. Wouldn't inclusion of that information be notable? If not in this article, then at least in the article for Transgender.

For example, something like this could be added to the article: "There are people and/or organizations, such as X, who contend that gender is determined solely by chromosomes or birth genitals, and that transwomen are not and cannot become 'real' women. (Citation) However, the prevailing viewpoint among gender experts is that gender is a complex construct based on one's self-image, and note that the brains of transwomen more closesly resemble those of ciswomen than of cismen, even when controlling for hormone use. (Citation) A poll conducted by Y in Z year found that X% of Americans/Canadians/Britons/wherever/etc. believed that transwomen should not be considered women, while Y% stated that transwomen are actual women. (Citation)" As the article is now, it acts like that perspective doesn't even exist. It would be just like if the Evolution article made no mention of the existence of creationists. Vontheri (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In reality, Vontheti, I am supportive of something like the first part of your suggestion, up to the second "(citation)", and particularly if sourced from reliable scholarship (which in this field means scholarship that is credible concerning gender identity, i.e., not Jordan Peterson :p ).

I am more skeptical about the opinion data, just because the WP articles in this domain have been brigaded in the past by people trying to substitute opinion data for RS definitions. I understand that you are not proposing to do that thing, but I personally feel that it would be unwise (and potentially UNDUE) to open that door. I am not sure that the public opinion support in the US for Young Earth Creationism, for example, is presented as prominently in Evolution as you are proposing to present equivalent data here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not remotely neutral in tone or content, taking one side of a disputed issue, and often reads like a puff piece. It needs at least a critical section. And for some of the more enthusiastic boosting to be removed. Jeremy (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. I recommend you peruse the archives littered with equine carcasses. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a talk page FAQ, summarizing some past discussions, as some such controversial articles have. Benjamin (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It at least needs to clarify that only certain people/philosophies hold this as the truth. Ideally, readers would be able to see all the opposing/critical ideas as well so that they can form their own conclusion and don’t come out of this article having been simply spoon-fed someone’s opinion. Of course, many transgender women care about this article and might push back against any changes. Maybe the simplest way to fix things would just be to lead off with, “A transgender woman is a term used by the transgender community/whoever to describe... (blah blah blah)” JW36788 (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We have literally been through this same issue repeatedly, in this talk page and others and at RfC. The reliable sources 'on gender identity' describe trans men as men and trans women as women, so that is the non-FRINGE opinion presented in WP's articles on these subjects. Using tortured language such as "a term used" would be WEASEL language and against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a wealth of literature in the field of biology that does not acknowledge the definition put forward in this article. At the moment the lead makes it appear there is unanimous consensus across the biological and social sciences and that simply isn't the case. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That is the scientific consensus, at least that's what reliable sources tells us. We are not going through this again, no matter how many times this article gets posted on some external forums. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There is not a scientific consensus on this issue. I can produce plenty of a scientific literature that describes women purely in terms of physiology. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Good for you. No doubt our understanding of reliable source and what is a legitimate peer reviewed scientific publication rather than more editorials differs. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

As Tsumikiria points out above, this had been previously discussed at length and a consensus agreed on the current wording. To keep pursuing these matters seems to me to be a breach of the basic principles of WP. No matter how strong your feelings, the matter had been discussed and a decision made. It's time to draw a line under it and move on. --John B123 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Its been previously discussed at length and no consensus was agreed on so the current wording stuck. I'm not looking to re-open debate, but don't try to pretend the RfC reached a consensus. see [5] There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds. This does not preclude any subsequent discussions about the article content, but participants should in all cases refrain from edit-warring over the content of the lead or the article more broadly. Galestar (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You miss a vital part there: no consensus was agreed on to change the wording. --John B123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think perhaps it is you that missed the comment I am replying to: a consensus agreed on the current wording. That statement was false and I pointed it out as such. Galestar (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

We can argue over the semantics for ever. The point is, a few editors wanted to change the wording, but disagreed on what it should be changed to, strongly opposing anybody else's proposal of what the "correct" wording should be. This led to several lengthy discussions, here and elsewhere, involving a large number of editors. Although there were attempts to find a solution that satisfied the majority, certain factions were so entrenched in their own POV that no compromise could be reached. --John B123 (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment one more time - Betty Logan is proposing to import some of the alternative viewpoints about woman to make the definition/discussion of trans woman more complex. The reliable sources about trans women are in fact neither complicated nor disputed, and as I have said before, in an article about a gender identity, WP needs to follow the reliable sources about that gender identity. To bring in FRINGE perspectives from other fields is not policy compliant; perhaps be a bit like bringing in flat earth perspectives to our plate tectonics articles - sure they need to be discussed, but only where they are actually relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Definition

@WanderingWanda: This article defines a trans woman as "a woman who was assigned male at birth" but that is an unsuitable definition because if the reader does not know what a transgender person is, he might think "but how he turned into a woman if she was born as a man?" then it would be better to change it to "a person who has been assigned male sex at birth, but whose gender identity is female."--Master545445 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed previously - see Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4 --John B123 (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Master545445, First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with Wanda (in their edit summary) and with User:John B123, above. This has already been discussed a great deal. There are other objections, as well, but they have more to do with basic principles of editing at Wikipedia. That would be off-topic here, but I'll leave you a more detailed message on your User talk page about this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Training and experience required

collapse snark
"A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth" Anyone got a reference to the qualifications and training required for this assignment at birth? Are there differences across the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:7A93:8B00:31A2:D329:7F75:8902 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Collapse IP comment per WP:NOTFORUM. – Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

The study where these numbers came from has a weird way to ask about sexuality: they did not ask about gynephilia/androphilia/... but instead they asked along the lines of homo/hetero/... sadly, there is no complete agreement what makes a transwomen homosexual: gynephilia or androphilia? For a long time transwomen who liked men got called homosexual, this has changed in recent times but not everyone accepts it. That's why the authors named this category gay/lesbian/same-gender, for MtFs as well as for FtMs. Right now this article states that 29% of transwomen are lesbian, but this misrepresents the data and gives a higher number than what reality probably looks like.

Sexuality of transpeople is sadly a more disputed and important topic than you might think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexuality#Classifying_transsexual_people_by_sexual_orientation so as long as there isn't a more reliable statistic, i would propose to delete or drastically change that part of the article (and the Trans_Man article).

this is my first time writing someting in wikipedia, so please don't crucify me if i've done something wrong

Momo7495 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Momo7495

@Momo7495: I changed the article's wording to reflect that the 29% did not merely respond that they identified only and specifically as "lesbian". --Equivamp - talk 23:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

Change the section in the first paragraph:

"assigned male at birth."

to

"born with a penis and no vagina."

Explanation: Regardless of what recent pop culture states; medically, a person who is born with a penis and no vagina, is a male. Similarly, a person who is born with a vagina and no penis, is a female. Left as it is, this article is fictional and should be marked as such with a heading indicating that it is science fiction or something similar, and not meant to be taken or accepted literally. 192.249.1.176 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done the proposed change would not be consistent with the definition of "trans woman" given in reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 15:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality needed in opening description

A more neutral way to begin this article would be to put "A transwoman is a person born male who identifies as a woman in adult life." That's all. It wouldn't say one way or another whether or not they should be considered a woman. It thus avoids taking any one side in that debate and thus aligns with Wikipedia's ethos of neutrality. Gallovidian85 (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And what source supports thid definition? Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No source is needed. We all agree on the following: 1. A transwoman is a person. 2. That person was born male (or observed as such at the time). 3. They identify as a woman in adult life.

Therefore a sentence that strings those factors together is one we all agree on. Gallovidian85 (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you're advocating for false balance rather than neutrality. The current language in the lead reflects how mainstream, reliable sources talk about this topic. WanderingWanda (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"False balance" - how exactly? Gallovidian85 (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion about the opening paragraph. --John B123 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I know that creating a FAQ on this has been suggested. But to create a FAQ and point to that discussion? All that discussion shows is that the matter was extensively debated, that consensus is against "is a male-to-female (MTF) transsexual or transgender person", that "There is a consensus that the word 'assigned' is preferable to the word 'biological' (and 'genetic', and similar words) for use in the lead sentence based on the current most reliable sources.", that "identifies as" is also how mainstream, reliable sources talk about this topic, that options 1 and 2 had the most support, that "The number of participants preferring either 'woman' or 'person who ... identifies as a woman' over the other on both sides were roughly equal. Both sides presented strong arguments. Neither side's arguments were substantially weaker or less policy-grounded than the other.", and that no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable "does not preclude any subsequent discussions about the article content." The only benefit of linking to that discussion is showing that consensus is against "is a male-to-female (MTF) transsexual or transgender person", that "there is a consensus that the word 'assigned' is preferable to the word 'biological' (and 'genetic', and similar words)", and that trying to get that lead sentence changed to something different will likely result in another very extensive debate and similarly result in no consensus to change the lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The point of linking to the discussion was to show that (a) the subject has been previously debated in great depth by many contributors, and (b) there was no consensus to change the article so the status quo should remain. As far as I'm aware, that outcome is not time-limited so to change the introduction to any significant degree still requires a consensus not just the views of a single editor. --John B123 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why you linked to it. You've been clear about the amount of debate that was involved. But I'm speaking of when the discussion is cited as though consensus was achieved to keep the current wording or as though there wasn't just as much support for "identifies as" with solid sources presented for that wording. There was a lack of consensus to change to "identifies as" because support (including strength of arguments) for the 1 and 2 options were roughly equal. I'm also speaking of any suggestion to use that discussion in a FAQ to ward off further discussion of changing the lead sentence so that "identifies as" is used. Anyone who takes the time to read the closing administrator's comment will state, "Hey, there was actually a lot of support for 'identifies as' and solid sources were presented for it. So why I am being pointed to this as though there was true consensus for the lead sentence not using 'identifies as'?" Like I noted, I can see pointing to the discussion to assert that consensus is against "born a man," "biological man" or similar, and "is a male-to-female (MTF) transsexual or transgender person." But when it comes to objecting to "identifies as"? No (unless noting that about half of those involved objected to it). But, yes, linking to that discussion to show that any change will require consensus and why? I agree with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

I believe a citation should be required for the line in the initial paragraph wherein it is claimed that SRS "can bring immense relief and even resolve gender dysphoria entirely". It is my belief that while seemingly innocuous this statement presents a strongly non-neutral tone and connotation, especially given its position at the head of the article, and comprises a proposition that requires evidential material. 194.125.20.94 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:LEADCITE, this content is already cited in the Trans woman#Overview section EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

POV issues

Flyer22 Frozen suggests there is a lot of POV wording, etc, and it needs tweaking before it goes lives. I used only primary sources and valid secondary news sources. I quote statistics, and in the process, reworded bigoted (e.g. "In 2015 a trope") and victim blaming language to reflect more neutral and accurate POV. I have been asked to present changes to my edits here, but my edits greatly expanded the knowledge of the section, which amounted to 11,930 characters. Am I required to enter a roughly 11,930 character edit here? --CheMoare (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For note, the edit in question is this one EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

CheMoare, see WP:Label, WP:Editorializing and WP:Tone. You shouldn't be adding wording such as "the more egregious", "bigoted", or "it is important to note." If a source states that, then you should attribute it to the author via WP:In-text attribution. Also, primary sources (see WP:Primary sources) are not preferred. Read WP:SCHOLARSHIP as well. Regarding health material, you should especially choose sources that are not primary. For why, see WP:MEDRS. Sources such as those from Medium generally shouldn't be used, as anyone can publish on Medium; see WP:Self-published sources. The exception for using such sources is what WP:Self-published and WP:About self state. As for posting your content for review, you can use your sandbox (located at the top of your account, where other options are located). You can post the content in your sandbox, tweak it, allow others to tweak it, link to the sandbox here and ask for review. And if there is WP:Consensus to add it, it will be added. No need to WP:Ping me when you reply since I watch this article and prefer not to be pinged to articles I'm watching. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

By primary source, I am speaking of the national surveys conducted, with prior standard review board approval for ethical practices. Not opinion pieces. Secondary sources, in this matter, would be the opinion pieces that were originally linked in the section I edited, which misrepresent the data. This is a standard inclusion in thousands of wiki articles, so I won't pretend it is wrong to include them here. However, your comment about the zine "Medium" is odd, given the quality of references that had already been approved in the section. My edits do not include health material, therefore it's unclear why you included that in your response. Further to this, it appears the text you have directed me to view as not all mine, but in part the opinionated and possibly biased language of the person who contributed prior to me, of which I left some in. For ex, "Hate crimes that target trans women are known as trans bashing." <- That is not my edit. Nor is ""gay panic" defense." So, at this point, edit whatever you want. I included only facts, no false information, national statistics, cited all my sources, and it was edited with the aim of removing false information and adding accurate and up-to-date info. Do as you please. CheMoare (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

CheMoare, take the time to thoroughly read the guidelines and WP:Tone supplement page I pointed you to. Whether you are speaking of opinions pieces or not, WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear about primary sources. So is WP:MEDRS. And as seen with WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:In-text attribution, and WP:NEWSBLOG, we have rules regarding opinion pieces as well. Regarding your wording changes, this edit shows that you changed "Trans women face a form of violence known as trans bashing." to "Hate crimes that target trans women are known as trans bashing." So, yes, the latter is your wording. If you read WP:Self-published sources, what I stated about Medium is not odd. The article having poor sourcing doesn't meant that more poor sourcing should be added. It just means that it's one aspect of the article that needs cleanup. And you clearly added "One of the more egregious gaslighting efforts by abusers (almost always men) to justify", etc. As for "gay panic defense", the term article was already linked in the section (using the term "trans panic defense" and pointing readers to the trans panic section of that article), but you did change "Approximately 56% of violent crimes towards trans people between 1990–2005 occurred because of this perceived deception." to "Approximately 56% of violent crimes towards trans people between 1990–2005 were committed because the abuser attempted to plead some form of 'gay panic' defense." As for health material? Information about intimate partner violence is health material. You added, for example, "For comparison, 24.3% of women and 13.8% of men aged 18+ in the United States 'have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime'." Should I have stated "medical material"? WP:MEDRS applies to health/medical material. See WP:Biomedical information. As for including your material, I am simply noting to you that we have policies and guidelines to follow, and that your text needs tweaking before it is added. There is no need to get upset or discouraged. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tweak away. You're the wikispirit. My contributions are submitted in full. CheMoare (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Warning of possible edit brigading

This article was linked here, and some users professed a desire to change the page as 'Wikipedia (has been) co-opted by Trans propaganda'. This is just to explain the source if a flurry of edits suddenly comes in, thanks. Amekyras (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This talk page needs...

...an important banner saying that "this is not the place to claim that the article should say trans women are not women". Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not accurate. This would be the place to provide evidence that the terminology is incorrect. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you’re hinting at my proposal: I was proposing that the article should not say trans women are women, not that it should say that “trans women are no women”. For this, it would suffice to argue that the terminology is dubious rather than incorrect (which I did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.68.27 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

This is the first result when someone searches “what is the life expectancy of trans women of colour” but it is false. It was actually written by an anti trans organisation and they are claiming that a statistic that has been proven true is false. This should be removed TPSOA (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The article states that the statistic is false although widely disseminated. --Equivamp - talk 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

'Trans women are women who are assigned male at birth' is inaccurate, it should read 'Trans women are men who prefer to be recognised as female' Battleofwuhan (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lenny230's edits

Can anyone watch Lenny230's edits of this article; making sure they're good?? (Somebody other than Lenny please respond to this before Lenny himself does.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

   Why are you in such a rush?  My contributions are 100% verifiable and with valid sources. (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

Please change "a transwoman is a woman" langauge at the opening of the article. As everyone in the world knows, men are NOT women and men canNOT become women. You call the value of all of Wikipedia into question when you publish articles baldly proclaiming that 2 plus 2 equals 5 as though there is no controversy on the matter. If everyone knows you are publishing "night is day" articles, of what conceivable worth is your "encyclopedia?" 2601:203:203:5800:833:BB8B:24B8:2BB (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Reopening. As it stands it is incorrect. Not tolerable on wikipedia.

 Not done: Please do not reopen based on your personal opinion of "truth" . See WP:NOTTRUTH for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is really easy to rephrase the first sentence to be neutral, as in “Transwomen are people who consider themselves women, and are increasingly considered by society as women, who were not assigned female at birth.” To me and many, many others, transwomen are no women. Our view point is being systematically marginalised by people pretending transwomen are *factually* women when in reality this is merely world view to which millions or even billions of people worldwide do not subscribe.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need consensus for something that is clearly using the wrong wording? "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" is factually inaccurate. There is much debate as to what it means to be a man, or to be a woman, but one thing is for sure: claiming that I am an elephant doesn't mean my Wikipedia article should say "...is an elephant." It should reflect the objective state of the world and my claims about it. "...is a person who claims to be an elephant" therefore would be much more accurate, and neutral. "A trans woman is a person who, having been born as a man, prefers to identify and conduct herself socially as a woman." would be a good place to start, a neutral and respectful assertion about the biological state of the person at birth and the adjustment to their chosen personality. Camilovietnam (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, here at WP, we follow what reliable sources say, not what individual editors personally believe to be true. Reliable sources on Trans women, by overwhelming consensus, state that they are women. What is more, your personal description of the "objective state of the world" is, AFAIK, not supported by reliable sources and therefore not germane to tHs discussion. I would go further, and say that your "claiming that you are an elephant" example is somewhere between a red herring and classic NOTHERE. I have seen no reliable sources stating either that you are an elephant or that you claim to be an elephant, so the case is not relevant. Are you an elephant? If not, let's move on. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above. Do not open this request again without obtaining consensus. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

At least put those "reliable sources" on the article. I have found 6 reliable sources from leading institutions and NONE of them uses the formula "A trans woman is a woman". Here are my references: (1. Harvard 2. Stanford 3. Princeton 4. Johns Hopkins University 5. American Psychological Univeristy 6. Planned Parenthood) --Lenny230 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be common here to claim that there is “overwhelming consensus” here and there are “reliable sources” backing this up. Yet, if you follow the request for comment, you will find that there is no consensus, but a mere stalemate on the issue and that no linked “reliable sources’ which ought to back up the claim actually hold up. If this is to be changed, maybe show some support for me in the relevant talk section I opened. Maybe if enough people do this, maybe we can get a repeated request for comment. I wouldn’t get my hopes, though. However, one can always try, maybe even should always try. 78.48.179.127 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia in English imposes a definition out of sync with the one used by Wikipedia in other languages

It is understood that Wikipedia in any given language is completely independent of other editions of Wikipedia and they are all under no obligation to be replicas of one another. However if all editions of Wikipedia are to follow the same principles (especially the principle of neutral content) it is expected that Wikipedia articles in different languages covering the same topic should have a reasonable and fair amount of resemblance.

Having said that, this is a sample of the definitions of "trans woman" in 3 languages other than English (French, Spanish and Portuguese). The reader will be able to notice that the following definitions do show resemblance:

1. Wikipedia in French: article "Femme trans"

Original definition in French: "Une femme trans ou femme transgenre est un être humain ayant été assigné homme à la naissance et qui a une identité de genre féminine"
English translation: "A trans woman or transgender woman is a human being who has been assigned male at birth and who has an identity of feminine gender"

2. Wikipedia in Spanish: article "Mujer transgénero"

Original definition in Spanish: "Una mujer transgénero, —abreviadamente mujer trans—, es una persona que nace con sexo masculino, pero percibe su identidad de género como femenina."
English translation: "A transgender woman, -in brief trans woman-, is a person who has been born with male sex, but perceives their gender identity as feminine"

3. Wikipedia in Portuguese: article "Mulher trans"

Original definition in Portuguese: "Uma mulher trans é uma pessoa que foi atribuída ao sexo ou género masculino ao nascer que possui uma identidade de gênero feminina"
English translation: "A trans woman is a person who was attributed (assigned to) male sex or gender at birth who possesses an identity of feminine gender"

As illustrated the definitions of trans woman in other Wikipedias use the formula: "What the person is biologically + What person identifies with". NONE of them uses the equivalent of "A trans woman is woman" used in Wikipedia in English.

References

--Lenny230 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias are not reliable sources for use in en.WP articles. As to the other concerns, they are discussed in the section above (and are non-starters for the reasons given there and in previous discussions linked to from there). Cheers! -sche (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is no neutrality on this page and personal agendas are imposed so easily then there is no point to continue as a donor --Lenny230 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: First of all, your premise at the top of consistency across different Wikipedias is mistaken, as there is no Wikipedia principle or guideline that requires this. Secondly, what User:-sche said; it's enshrined at WP:WPINARS. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you don't know much French or Portuguese, or you wouldn't have posted the translations you did, which pretty much invalidates the rest of your argument even if consistency were a Wikipedia principle, which it isn't.

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's set all that aside, for the moment. The purpose of this page (as every article Talk page) is to discuss improvements to *this* article. Do you have a proposal for an addition, or a change to this article that you'd like to discuss? Just so you know, this type of question has arisen before (more than once) and if you want to check the archives, you can find lots and lots of points of view about it.

I noticed that you tried a change at Trans man along these lines as well.

P.S., just a note about linking: you don't need to use footnotes to link foreign Wikipedia article, you can just use a foreign in-line link, like this: Femme trans. See here for an explanation. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I stand by my original post: it is consistent. A definition without valid references and verifiable sources is currently being imposed in the English wikipedia. Something that does not happen in the other editions showed as examples. And not even consistent with the definition used in the transgender article --Lenny230 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I am proposing the following definition: "A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum". This definition summarizes the following sources I have found: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Johns Hopkins University, American Psychological Association and Planned Parenthood.

@Lenny230: You mean, Wikipedia is supposed to talk about trans women more as if they were a third gender and not a kind of woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Are you able to find references and sources from organizations or institutions (with the same level or recognition that I am proposing) that use the phrase "a trans woman is a woman"? That way you can support it. Because all you do is using and repeating your personal point of view. --Lenny230 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: It's the point of view of people who understand what transgenderism is. Georgia guy (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Support that with valid references and verifiable sources which is the purpose of Wikipedia. You are not the one who decides who understands it and who do not. --Lenny230 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: Your source 1 says:

• Transgender Woman or Girl | A woman or girl assigned a male sex at birth.

That seems fine to me. Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems very US-centric. In many other countries, legal gender is simply independent from sex assignment, and the "person" or "individual who" language is entirely unnecessary. Also note that the consensus in previous RfCs is that the "who identifies" language has been used as a dog whistle by "gender critical" FRINGE activists to undercut "gender ideology", whatever that is supposed to be. We are not supposed to cater to FRINGE perspectives. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In the #Proposal to use the definition of "Trans woman" used by leading institutions. section above, Lenny230 very clearly showed that "identifies as" is not some WP:Fringe position and can actually be supported by WP:Reliable sources, including the American Psychological Association, which is an authoritative source on sexual orientation and gender identity topics. Even LGBT-friendly organization Planned Parenthood, which some LGBT editors will cite for other things but apparently not for this, uses "but whose gender identity is female." A similar presentation of quality sources for "identifies as" or similar were presented in the big RfC that took place in 2018. And like I mentioned before, there actually wasn't consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "identifies as a woman." At this point in time, no reliable sources for defining a trans woman as "A trans woman is a woman" have been presented. Lenny230 is correct to adhere to our WP:Verifiability policy and shouldn't be maligned for doing so. Yes, there are people who want to use "identifies as" to invalidate trans people's identities, but we should be focusing on how Wikipedia is supposed to work and making sure that we aren't casting aspersions toward Lenny230 and/or trying to run Lenny230 off.

If Lenny230 wants to pursue this with respect to WP:Consensus can change and start a new WP:RfC on it, so be it. Lenny230, you could easily start a new RfC on this matter and advertise it at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and/or even at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) since it relates to our WP:Neutral point of view policy and interpreting it appropriately. When advertising it, you have to keep what WP:APPNOTE states in mind. For example, you can ping all of the editors previously involved with the aforementioned RfC, but your wording has to be neutral. All this stated, I did note in the #It should not be stated that transwomen are women section above that "I wouldn't advise [an editor] to pursue this since taking it on will be very draining and another standstill is the likely result." Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22, Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. It is great to see that there is still common sense on Wikipedia and that the value of my contributions is appreciated. I will proceed with your suggestion to advertise this on the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page. Best regards. --Lenny230 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I have not been casting aspersions or maligning any editor; I have simply noted why it is that "who identifies" language meets with resistance on WP, in spite of its literal accuracy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Because in this article Wikipedia is incorrectly allowing subjectivity (the perception of the phrase "who identifies" by certain editors) to prevail over objectivity (a literally accurate phrase as you correctly state). If the Wikipedia principle of neutrality was applied here then objectivity would prevail over subjectivity. WP is not the place where personal views or feelings should prevail. In this article, unfortunately, they do. --Lenny230 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Literalness and objectivity are not the same thing, by any impartial or "objective" standard. The use of language is at best intersubjective, which is what WP aims for: the use of language that can potentially allow readers to understand what is intended. "Dog whistle" language, whether intended or not by the editors introducing it, impedes effective intersubjectivity. Also, the only reason I can see why you chose your preferred Harvard definition over the more relevant "woman or girl assigned a male sex at birth" (from the same source) would seem to be your feelz, Lenny. Take the log out of your own eye first, etc. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You are seeing incorrectly. Harvard has updated the definition from the one they had 3 days ago. --Lenny230 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Took a quick peak at the sources used above to suggest changes to the lead and stopped at the first one when it defined clearly trans woman as "A woman or girl assigned a male sex at birth." This is seeming like a waste of editor time. Rab V (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC) ___

References

First link

I'm confused by the first link in this article - behind the word "woman". It leads to an article that defines "woman" as "female human being", which in turn leads to an article that defines "female" in biological terms. Are trans women biologically female?

NB This is a rhetorical question intended to draw attention to a possible internal contradiction on Wikipedia, and not an attempt to start a discussion about whether or not trans women are biologically female.

Edit: I've come under fire for not making any explicit suggestions in my original post, so here goes. Do one of the following: 1. Remove the link from the first sentence of Trans woman to the first sentence of Woman. 2. Remove the link from the first sentence of Woman to the first sentence of Female. 3. Add the word "typically" (or some synonym of it) to the first sentence of Woman. My preference, if I have to express one, is option 1 (for semantic reasons), which is why I haven't taken the discussion to one of the other Talk pages.

H Remster (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It took me ages to find this post, because you inserted it into a post from yesterday. Could you please not do that. Option 1, (the obvious easy solution to this dilemma) was tried yesterday, and reverted 30 minutes later. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I tried to weigh the criticism I'm continuing to receive for not having made concrete suggestions in my original post against any criticism I'd receive for inserting an addendum. It looks as if I made the wrong call, but I'll know in future. (I infer from your response that officially sanctioned editors receive some sort of notification of any edit, and that you're an officially sanctioned editor.) H Remster (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I shall respond on your Talk page. No worries though, all is good. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

^Not sure this is even a productive statement. Can you point out what you are talking about and how it relates to an issue with the article? Generally speaking the correct term would be source/citation rather than link. Sxologist (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To respond to the option 1/option 2 business: option 1 seems unnecessary to me because a trans woman is both a woman and a Woman. Option 2 does seem necessary to me, because while women are all female, not all are Female. But this is not the Talk page to discuss that proposal, and I am pessimistic anyway because my experience of pages where MEDRS lurks in the corners is that they are very difficult to change outside of a very limited paradigm. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, my actual view is that this is a semantic issue masquerading as a metaphysical issue and motivated by an ethical issue, and that it could be resolved by an explicit statement that the controversial terms ("woman", "female", etc.) have both older, biological senses and newer, sociological senses. But that isn't going to happen either. H Remster (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And there I simply disagree with you. The idea that the biological sense of "woman" is older than the sociological one is (i) unsupported by evidence and (ii) usually invoked by people who want to incorporate, say, the last hundred years of life science while excluding the last hundred years of social science. Looked at over the last millennium or so, I don't see any basis for asserting that "female" or "woman" have been biological terms rather than or prior to being social terms. They have usually been both, and most often without strict delineation about which sense is meant in a specific instance. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm not trying to advance my official position here. I'm merely illustrating why I, like you, don't expect to see my preferred outcome. (As an aside, I'd be interested to know privately what you think about "Water", "H₂O" and the Twin Earth thought experiment, with which I presume you're familiar. I hope it's obvious enough why I would bring that up here, even if we'd disagree about its relevance to "woman"/"female" and any biological characteristics.) H Remster (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In an odd way, I suppose I do see a tangential relevance of the thought experiment, in that I do believe that on our earth, human beings have been carrying around gender identities without realizing that we were doing so until recently. These identities have always been roughly as relevant and necessary to our lives as water, regardless of our conscious knowledge of them or our theories of their formation. However, I am fairly confident that this is not a point the analytical philosophers were hoping to make. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. (In case it's not obvious after all why I brought this up, I'll explain that it's to illustrate why the comparative modernity of biology (the science) isn't a barrier to "woman"/"female" having a biologically determined reference that pre-dates modern biology - just as the comparative modernity of chemistry isn't a barrier to "water" having a chemically determined reference that pre-dates modern chemistry. Nothing more exciting than that.) H Remster (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I got all of that. But what struck me upon reflection is that it is equally true (and arguably more relevant) that the comparative modernity of "gender identity" as a sociological and psychological concept is equally not a barrier to "woman" having a reference determined by social role definition and/or personality psychology - determinations that predate the modern social sciences in essentially the same way as the chemically-determined reference for water predates modern chemistry. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I mistakenly thought you were making a point about the relative importance of gender identity and water to humans, rather than a point about the relative importance of gender identity to "woman"/"female", on the one hand, and H₂O to "water", on the other hand. H Remster (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that when you stated "the controversial terms ('woman', 'female', etc.) have both older, biological senses and newer, sociological senses.", you meant that "woman" originally referred to cisgender women (the etymology and all that shows this), not to people assigned male at birth, and that the newer, sociological senses pertain to the topic of transgender (including non-binary) people. Like I stated with this edit at the Stonewall riots article, "some of the identities that exist now did not exist back then. Gender variant people existed, but they didn't go by a lot of the terms we see today." We discuss the origins of the term transgender in this section of the Transgender article. And as we can see, the origins can be described as relatively new...depending on how one defines "relatively new." There is no doubt that transgender people existed before then, but we weren't calling people transgender, or trans women or trans men, or non-binary. And, yes, I know the history of the third gender concept. Correct me if I'm wrong about what you meant. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's quite close. I can certainly accept that people who we retrospectively call "transgender" have existed for far longer than the word "transgender" has existed. My only reservation is about the phrase "assigned 'male' at birth", which makes it sound like an arbitrary decision, as opposed to a (merely) conventional one. What I envisage - I've no desire to impose this on anyone else - is that "woman" originally signified a biological category, even though the distinguishing features of that category were unknown. (The example of "water" is helpful here: "water" has always referred to a particular chemical substance, even though we haven't always known that the substance in question is composed of molecules each containing one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.) What's changed - I'm still just explaining what I envisage - is that the biological distinction is now considered by many to be sociologically insignificant, and so "woman" has become used to signify a sociological category, which maps only imperfectly onto the biological category. H Remster (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, the actual evidence is equally compatible with the idea that "man" and "woman" originally signified functional or even grammatical categories rather than biological ones. We don't have any support for one "vision" against the other, which is why people's positions on this question end up being determined more by ideology than anything else. As far as sex assignment is concerned, it seems likely that this terminology and the practices it involves are a more accurate account of traditional or conventional practices than more strictly biological conceptions of sex difference. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Any recommended reading on the "actual evidence"? This is a genuine request. I've no axe to grind on this issue and expressed my views only because I thought I was being asked about them. (What motivated me to create this section really is the contradiction that I noticed while browsing.) Let me just point out that the views I've expressed are purely about semantics. I can see that the article on sex assignment covers the practice of judging a person's sex at birth, but this doesn't necessarily address the semantic issue. Consider the case of water again: historically, water will have been identified by being the wet stuff found in rivers and lakes (or something like that); but it doesn't follow either that just any wet stuff found in rivers or lakes is water, or that water can't be found in conditions or locations that we haven't yet considered. H Remster (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have readings to assign, but the main disciplines that have something to say about this are anthropology and archeology, linguistics and etymology. And on that last point, "female" and "male" have mostly biological etymology, but "woman" and "man" come from references to social roles and relationships. The whole territory is somewhat obscure. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I had a feeling there would be an article about this: Etymological fallacy. As you will have gathered, I have no strong views on the question of which usages came first, and in fact I regret having written "both older, biological senses and newer, sociological senses" rather than simply "both biological senses and sociological senses", since the order of temporal precedence matters not one jot to the issue at hand. It's my error, and one that might end up getting the whole section deleted. H Remster (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the first link, i.e. hyperlink, in the first sentence of the article. H Remster (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the link, noting that the Woman article itself explicitly scopes itself as encompassing trans women (and, as discussed on that article's talk page, it's ironic that some people try to either use or take "female" as an exclusionary definition of woman when trans women feel it applies perfectly well to them, since the word "female" too can and often does refer to gender). -sche (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been broken again. (Note: As a long serving wikieditor, I understand what is going on here. Long term watchers of this page are just enforcing community consensus in this area, and all the rather premptory and rude appearing responses from them to newbies are the result of long term "fedupness" with newbies criticising. Get used to it watchers. Trying to explain this fact about wikipedia is something you should become expert at, because it makes little sense to a newbie, or anybody with an ordinary science education.) -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

lol. -sche (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm neither surprised nor bothered by the rudeness, but I appreciate the comment. I did notice that the Woman article contains the phrase "trans women", but also that it starts with the sentence "A woman is a female human being" and links to a page that defines "female" in biological terms. So either the Woman article is self-contradictory, or it's using the phrase "trans women" in a sense that doesn't entail that trans women are women. Perhaps it's the Woman or the Female article that needs to be amended. H Remster (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? It may help. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Just read it. What is it you're suspecting me of? H Remster (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing at all. I'm trying to point out that wikipedia sometimes gets it wrong and there is nothing to be done about it. What is happening here is set in stone by Wikipedia Policy and it doesn't make much sense to many people who come up against it. The examples and arguments presented by Lenny on this page make perfect sense, and yet they do not carry weight in this discussion because of Policy. The phrase "Tilting at windmills" comes to mind. The only way to get around this is to change Policy, and we wont be able to do that here. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Roxy the dog for acknowledging that the arguments I presented make perfect sense. I understand there is a policy issue. CC: -sche Georgia guy Mathglot

Still not quite seeing it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over how Wikipedia defines "trans woman", "woman" and "female", but I'm surprised mutual consistency isn't a requirement. My own preference would be a prominent link to the article on semantic change, but it would take a braver person than me to tamper with this article. H Remster (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Enforcing consistency across pages would be a nightmare. This is by no means the most glaring example of inconsistency across pages even in the area of transgender topics. If you want a real example of inconsistency, try to figure out what Wikipedia thinks about Blanchard's transsexualism typology, noting that any article such as the current one that mentions gender dysphoria contradicts it.

(If you want me to spoil the ending: any article that mentions the typology will implicitly endorse it while it's mentioning it, but usually in language that is very clearly the result of a contentious edit war, and then every article or piece of an article that does not explicitly mention it, such as this one, will implicitly endorse gender dysphoria or some variant as the cause of transness and not even take Blanchard's typology particularly seriously.) Loki (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting example. However, the difficulty of enforcing consistency across pages in general doesn't prevent it from occurring in a particular case, and what makes the present case glaring is the sequence of linked first sentences:

Trans woman: "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth."

Woman: "A woman is a female human being."

Female: "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)."

The only way that all three of these sentences could be true is if a trans woman was a human being about whose biological characteristics a mistake had been made at birth, which obviously isn't the intention. This is why it would make sense for at least one of the links to be broken (Trans woman -> Woman, or Woman -> Female), or at least one of the articles to be rewritten. H Remster (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem link is the female one at woman, since the scope of the former article is narrowly biological while the second article is much broader in scope. However. OWNership issues make this nearly impossible to fix IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about the ownership thing. H Remster (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I'm not sure what policy you are referring to. WP:Consensus is policy. But like I've stated above on this talk page, there actually wasn't consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "identifies as a woman" in the big RfC that took place in 2018. And either way, consensus can change. Lenny230 has actually done a great job at compiling reliable sources that support "identifies as."

H Remster, to reiterate what I stated to Lenny230 in the #Wikipedia in English imposes a definition out of sync with the one used by Wikipedia in other languages section above, you could easily start a new WP:RfC on this matter and advertise it at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and/or even at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) since it relates to our WP:Neutral point of view policy and interpreting it appropriately. When advertising it, you have to keep what WP:APPNOTE states in mind. For example, you can ping all of the editors previously involved with the aforementioned RfC, but your wording has to be neutral. All this stated, I did note in the #It should not be stated that transwomen are women section above that "I wouldn't advise [an editor] to pursue this since taking it on will be very draining and another standstill is the likely result." As for the Female article focusing on biology, it's not like that because of WP:OWN. It's that way because it's standard practice for our WP:Anatomy, WP:Biology and WP:Med articles to focus on biology and/or medical aspects, with little, if any, cultural content or any cultural bent. For example, as seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS, we may have a "Society and culture" section. But the Female article should not become another Woman article, just like the Sex article should not become another Gender article. There is enough about gender in the Woman, Gender, Gender role, Gender variance, and other gender-focused articles. And as for Blanchard's typology, it does not discount gender dysphoria, but this isn't the talk page to discuss that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

F22, I was hoping you'd turn up, I'm not comfortable in this discussion. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, your reason is different from Newimpartial's but the consequence is the same: if the Female article is based on a biological definition of "female" but the Woman article isn't based on a biological definition of "woman", then there's no sense in linking from one to the other in an opening sentence that reads "A woman is a female human being", because it will exclude any women (non-bio) who aren't females (bio), and include any females (bio) who aren't women (non-bio). I appreciate, though, that this might be a discussion for the Talk page of the Woman article. H Remster (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Woman article is based on a biological definition of "woman." It begins that way. However, as also pointed out at the Woman talk page, biology is not the only thing to consider when defining "woman." So gender/gender identity is also relevant there. There is currently a discussion going on now about it at the Woman talk page: Talk:Woman#Self-contradiction in intro. A permalink for it is here. But as noted there and below, this has been rehashed to death. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Then the Woman article either contradicts itself or contains an opening statement that it subsequently rescinds. What a mess. I understand why you'd want to leave it alone. H Remster (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Something can have more than one definition or aspect and therefore that other definition or aspect not be a contradiction. As seen in that current discussion at the Woman talk page, editors have argued that it's not a contradiction. And you can see -sche pretty much argue the same with this edit here at the Trans woman talk page. There will be people who will feel that it's a contradiction, while others won't feel that it's one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course. But in the present case, the (purported) lexical ambiguity of "woman" is obscured by the article's beginning "A woman is a female human being", rather than "Some women are female human beings" or "Most women are female human beings" or "A woman is typically a female human being". H Remster (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, everyone tends to agree that "a woman is a female human being", but not that "a woman is a female human being". Reliable sources have established that "female" can refer to chromosomes, or physiology, or gender, or gender identity, or any of the above (and except for the occasional digression about Vulcans, we are always talking about human beings in this context). The current state of the female article, however, collapses this ambiguity as it is dealing with a biological concept that crosses species and genera. The essential "contradiction", if there is one, is created by the wikilink and not by the word "female". Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's my point. Inasmuch as I care about any of this, it's about the contradiction (in the strict logical sense - it doesn't require quotation marks) caused by the sequence of hyperlinks. H Remster (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We've had this discussion for years (see Talk:Trans_man/Archive_2#Wording_in_lede from 2 years ago, as well as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and this giant RfC). Consensus can change, yes, but I honestly worry that the umpteenth exhuming of the horse carcass (aka the lead sentence) will result in a firewood shortage. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)" seems to exclude women born without a uterus or ovaries or menopausal women, which can not be right? Female is more than just biology. Female also refers to gender, unless the object is to deny that genders exist. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In our articles (not just our biology, anatomy, and medical articles), we usually begin with the typical/most common definition or aspect (as relayed in the overall literature). We note exceptions or atypical facets, such as intersex aspects, after that. That is per WP:Due. Exceptions do not make the rule. We know, for example, that while humans typically have five digits, this is not always the case, which is why the Hand article states that humans normally have five digits. Furthermore, the Female article is not just about humans; it's also about non-human animals. And the topic of gender is firmly within the realm of humans (regardless of some who assign gender to non-human animals in some way). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 Frozen. Exceptions do not make the rule. A definition always starts with the typical aspect that the general understanding and common sense indicate. Unfortunately there are still users who tend to believe that if a definition does not include all the possible variations and exceptions to the rule then there is some sort of discrimination or intentional exclusion.

If this was true then Wikipedia would not even be able to say "A human being has one head" because they will say that it is discriminatory against people who are born with two heads. --Lenny230 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The greater problem with the article on Female is that it appears to be barely sourced. It's possible further sourcing (or, basically any sourcing) will naturally resolve the contradiction. Loki (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lenny230, I understand and agree that a "definition always starts with the typical aspect that the general understanding and common sense indicate". However, if the definition doesn't actually include the word "typical" or some synonym of it, it usually describes the typical aspect by means of a paradigm term - a term that contains typicality as part of its meaning. So, for example, the definition of "human" might begin "A human is a monocephalus" or "A human is a biped", because (a) a typical human has one head and two feet, and (b) "monocephalus" (if I haven't just made that word up) and "biped" mean, respectively, "member of a class of animals that typically have one head" and "member of a class of animals that typically have two feet". But it wouldn't begin "A human is an animal that has one head" or "A human is an animal that has two feet", because "animal that has one head" and "animal that has two feet" aren't paradigm terms. H Remster (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster While I acknowledge that my example about the human with two heads is extreme my point is that it is only acceptable to have a definition without references when this definition is unquestionable by the facts and reality (like for example the definition used in the human article). If the definition is questionable and debatable then it should have references. That is why I challenge the definition used in this article. The phrase "a trans woman is a woman" is a source of endless debate and is there in the article without any references. --Lenny230 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lenny230 I agree with you. I think it's possible you've missed the thrust of this section, and I don't blame you for that: it's become long. H Remster (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2020‎ (UTC)

This whole section started as a rhetorical question without any explicit suggestions to improve this article and so far it has not improved from there. Leaning toward seeing this all as a big WP:NOTFORUM issue that is more about airing personal opinions and snark than actually improving the article. Rab V (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please try to comment on specific points instead of denigrating the section or the other contributors. H Remster (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster, no, on the contrary. Rab V did not denigrate the section, she is merely upholding Wikipedia's principles of what a Talk page is for. If this section is found to be a discussion of various editors' general opinions about the topic, rather than a concrete discussion of how to improve the article, then the whole discussion could be collapsed, or in egregious cases, even removed, per WP:NOTFORUM. Your reply to Rav V appears to be based on your misunderstanding of what a Talk page is for. Please refrain from criticizing editors who are simply upholding policy. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, then Rab V either hadn't read the thread or hadn't understood it. I'm inclined to go with the latter, since she deleted the original version of my (very short) original post soon after I posted it. The sole purpose of this section is to discuss the best way to resolve the logical contradiction generated by the links between the three articles, and that has nothing to do with editors' general opinions about the topic. Even where the discussion might appear to you to have broadened, my sights have remained set on the ultimate goal of resolving the contradiction. H Remster (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The so-called "logical contradictuon" exists on the Woman page with its use of "Female" rather than "female", and can therefore not be fixed from here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster, there is no Wikipedia policy that calls for resolving logical contradictions between different articles. That may be your purpose here, but it's not what Talk pages are for. When reliable sources offer differing definitions in the real world, whether inconsistent, illogical, or contradictory, then Wikipedia articles may reflect those differences if appropriately sourced in their respective articles about related, but differing topics. This Talk page is about improving this article, and a focus on resolving contradictions in other articles that reflect real-world sources is out of scope for this Talk page, and is collapsible per WP:NOTFORUM if this discussion runs off the rails. Let's stick to improving this article, and not worry about the others. Do you think the reliable sources are misquoted here, or not used in proper proportion? Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing ping. Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the logical contradiction is generated by the conjunction of the first sentences of the three articles and could be resolved by the removal of any one of them from the conjunction (i.e. by the removal of hyperlink). I understand your preference and your reasons for having it - we've discussed it a bit above - but this is precisely what's up for grabs in this section. H Remster (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is going to change a statement that has survived the RfC process because of an alleged logical tension in another article. That just isn't in the cards. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Logical contradiction"? "Conjunction of the first sentences"? I think I see what's going on here. You believe in a world where definitions are all internally consistent, all agree with each other, and form part of a perfectly developed whole, sort of what like Whitehead and Russell attempted to do by putting science and mathematics on a formal basis with their Principia Mathematica, am I right? However, we live in a messy, illogical, imperfect world, where even the hard sciences don't all agree with each other, let alone social science, history (who won the War of 1812?), or any of the myriad (6M) topics at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and to the extent that each article follows policies of Verifiability and employs reliable sources in proper proportion, differences among articles may be apparent. This is an inevitable consequence of the world being illogical and inconsistent, and not a perfect, mathematical creation. If Wikipedia accurately reflects that inconsistency, then we have done our job well. By focusing on this article, on this talk page, we are doing our job. By trying to foist an artificial consistency that does not reflect the real world, we are abandoning our role, and placing ourselves as arbiters of how the world oughta be, instead of how it is, messy, illogical, and inconsistent though it be. Can we get back to improving this article, now? Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"[A]m I right?". No, not in the slightest. I tried to explain this in my last post addressed to you, but I seem to have failed to post it. My gripe isn't with contradictions between articles. I'm happy with those, for all the reasons you've given. My gripe is with links between mutually contradictory articles or, more precisely, what I imagine to be the purpose of those links. I imagine that the purpose of linking from the first sentence of the present article to Woman, and from the first sentence of Woman to Female, is to refine the reader's understanding of "trans woman" as used in Trans woman, and "woman" as used in Woman. But if I'm wrong about that, it's as you were. H Remster (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Earlier today I edited my original post in blissful ignorance of the protocol. Sorry, all. H Remster (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You can repair that, even after the fact, by following the recommendations at WP:REDACT. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)