Talk:Transgender/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Definition is wrong and not supported by the rest of the article

Transgender does not necessarily have anything to do with how the person identifies themselves. That is what gender dysphoria is. Transgender is a blanket term that includes all kinds of things. For instance someone with transvestic fetishism is transgender even if they don't have gender dysphoria. This is already in the article. The definition at the top does not match up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk • contribs)

From what I can tell, the article says it includes many things according to the bullet points in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding a WP:HAT to Transsexual and vice versa

Would people particularly object or support the introduction of a hatnote to Transsexual and vice versa from Transgender? Perhaps the "See also" or "Further information" template, though I am open to suggestions. I have posed this question on Talk:Transsexual. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Part of speech

In diff, I tweaked the first line of the lead to reflect the fact that transgender is usually an adjective and not a noun meaning "the state of...". This is what the cited GLAAD reference says regarding the word's part of speech, and it matches how the word used in the very next sentence and how the related word transsexual is used (part-of-speech-wise) in the lead of its article. Most dictionaries, e.g. Oxforddictionaries.com and Cambridge, have transgender as only an adjective, and the few like Dictionary.com which do have a noun sense have only an "a person who..." sense, not a "state of..." sense (such a sense does exist, to be clear, but it's very rare). -sche (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Transsexual people and science

The above-named section consistently refers to "transsexuals". Assuming that this is correct and the studies were specifically of transsexuals, should the section be moved to the article "transsexual"? A summary and pointer could be retained here, of course. Also: is there a clearer name for the section? "Transsexual people and science" sounds like it might contain information on the contributions of trans scientists to science. Perhaps "Scientific studies of transsexuality"? -sche (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing the header makes sense to me, so I've gone ahead and done that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favour of moving the whole section - it's fairly specific to transsexual people. Chocolate vittles (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Clarifying_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_in_which_transgender_individuals_are_mentioned_in_passing addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC); ^{added missing link, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)}

Should we put up a banner on this talkpage saying to look at MOS:Identity for guidelines on referring to transgender individuals, both in passing and in depth? Just wondering. Thanks BTW for sharing this, though it seemed a bit confusing for a while since the second link is missing. You had only put [[]] without a link but they are near each other and I've put in the link for you anyway. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Regarding the tag, yes you should but you might want to hold off. The RfC has spawned a side-discussion of whether the rule should be moved from WP:MOS to MOSBIO. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Basic definition is not correct

First discussion

The whole article has many problems but let's start with the basic definition. It currently reads "Transgender people expeience [SIC] a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex." But that is not how the APA defines transgender. They define it like this "Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth" http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx The difference is that the wiki definition leaves out most transgender people and only includes people with identity issues. It is a definition for gender dysphoria or transsexual not for transgender. Transgender includes all kinds of other things besides people with gender dysphoria such as transvestic fetishists. Like I said the whole article is bad but let's start there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC) In regards to your concerns: Are transvestites not people expressing a mismatch between gender identity and assigned sex, even if only in a potentially sexual context? At any rate, there is a section further down the page detailing the relationship between transgender and transvestite as words. Are there other concerns? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC) This IP has posted about this before; see the IP's contributions, and the #Definition is wrong and not supported by the rest of the article section above. As for your question, Drcrazy102, transvestites commonly do not have a gender identity that is at odds with their assigned sex. As is known, many men dress up in women's clothing and still identify as men. If they identify as women at any point while cross-dressing, it is usually temporary. IP, the rest of the lead is clear that the term transgender is also used as an umbrella term. The lower part of the article is also clear about that. But as recently noted at Talk:Transsexual, the term transgender is commonly used to the exclusion of genderqueer people and especially to the exclusion transvestites/cross-dressers. When people state that they are transgender, they usually don't mean that they are genderqueer and/or a transvestite/cross-dresser. I know this from what sources state, and not just from experience. If anyone wants sources for what I've stated in this section, look on Google Books and/or look to the sources in this section of the Gender variance article. Also, the term transvestite is offensive to many in the LGBT community; in the case of those who find it offensive, they prefer the term cross-dresser. Flyer22 (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Per this, this, this and this, the lead has been updated. Flyer22 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Second discussion

Yes it has been brought up before and will continue to be until you get it right. Transgender is not "sometimes" defined as an umbrella term. It is an umbrella term. You are confusing transgender with gender dysphoria and transsexual. They are not the same thing. And no the term transvestite is not offensive. It is a medical term. Your exclusion of transvestites without gender dysphoria from the definition of transgender is offensive though, and not accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Nah. Many GQ and NB folks don't use "transgender" as an umbrella term. More would use "trans", but even then some don't. "Queer" is a more encompassing term anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) My definition is sourced thoroughly with the APA. It is even later down in this article. Transvestic fetishists are transgender. They do not claim a different identity of any kind. There is no debate here. The definition includes cross gender behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC) I don't see it mentioned on the source you give. You assume it's included in their definition, but that's WP:SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC) I think that the basic definition should be as follows: Transgender is adjective that describes a person who self identifying internalized gender is different than the sex assigned to him or her at birth.[1] This term is often misused as a noun and is considered offensive if used to title a group, e.g. “the transgenders”, “gays”, “the blacks.” Appropriate use would be “the transgender community”, “gay men” and “black Americans”. Please remember that taking away the aspect of humanity from a term makes it offensive e.g. little person vs midget I also think that the term "transvestite" is very offensive and very outdated. It would be nice if we used a more politically correct term. The most commonly accepted term is "crossdress" and therefore "crossdresser"Brianallen90802 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802 "I also think that the term "transvestite" is very offensive and very outdated." While I specifically identify as a transvestite and find the term crossdresser offensive and outdated. --Khajidha (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC) You guys still have it wrong and have a bunch of weasel words like claiming "crossdressers" (transvestites) are only "infrequently" considered transgender. This is false. They are transgender. Once again, transgender and gender dysphoria are not the same thing. Most transgender people do not have gender dysphoria and do not live as the opposite sex in daily life. Anyone who finds terminology like transvestite offensive needs to stop working on this page. There is no argument on of this. This is the offical APA definition of the term transgender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC) IP, re your claim that "Most transgender people do not have gender dysphoria and do not live as the opposite sex in daily life." - "Most?" Whoa, what? News to me... Funcrunch (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Please forgive me but I am transgender and if I'm not mistaken I thought this was a discussion. I starting to think that the terms like "weasel words" are rather uncalled for. As far as finding something offensive I believe that being transgender makes me qualified to know know what is offensive. e.g. an asian won't find the "N" word offensive so does that mean it isn't? Also the APA defintion doesn't explicitely mention crossdresser as of "transgender" because it is different although it is part of their "umberella" definition. TG is about self identity and CD is about gender expression. Moreover the term transvestites is offensive because it now has a strong sexual connotation vs crossdressers.(like shemale, or ladyboy) If you don't believe me please type transvestites.com and see the differences between that and crossdressers.com. I think that you tell some you are TV and they look that up they'll think you are dressing for sexual pleasure whereas if you say that you are CD and they look that up then they think that you are dressing for gender expression. Please note that the APA not refers to "gender dysphoria" as a stress disorder brought on by dealing with the mental distress associated with transgender issues. Brianallen90802 (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Brianallen90802 That's odd, because in my experience the connotations of transvestite and crossdresser have been the exact opposite of those you describe. Not saying that your experience is invalid, just that it isn't universal. --Khajidha (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Of course I agree that not all experiences are universal, however I would say that the vast majority of transgender people would prefer to not be referred to as "shemales" or "transexuals" or "ladyboys". It is very similar in the way the word "retarded" at first didn't mean something negative but over time it took on a negative connotation. Thus today referring to someone who is mentally challenged as retarded is offensive. Wikipedia is a perfect plateform because it changes with the current trends so when something like referring to transgender people as "transexuals" becomes offensive we can then inform people that it may be rather insensitive. Brianallen90802 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802, the examples you give are very different terms used for different populations. First of all, the terms "shemale" and "ladyboy" apply only to trans people who were assigned male at birth. Transsexual can apply to a person who was either assigned male or assigned female, and many trans people (including myself) still describe ourselves with that term. "Shemale" primarily refers to male-assigned trans people in the sex work and pornography industries, and I would agree that the use of that term has become offensive. "Ladyboy" is from what I understand the English word for kathoey which is a Thai-specific term. Funcrunch (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802, that many (seemingly most) transgender people object to the term transsexual was discussed at Talk:Transsexual. But, as you can see in that discussion, one of the editors very much embraces transsexual. Not all transsexual people object to the term. But I've definitely seen editors and IPs remove transsexual from articles because they find the term offensive and/or outdated; for example, with this recent edit, one of the terms that the IP called outdated is transsexual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) When labeling individual living people, it is important to respect their identity and not use the word "transsexual" unless they specifically refer to themselves with that term. For historical people, things get tricky as language and preferred terms have changed. As I see it, the term transsexual is a subset of "transgender" which is in use by some but not all trans people. "Trans" is a term that should be safe to apply in most contexts (though still would not be applicable to some who are often described as third gender). Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802, this edit you made (which was reverted) is a no-go. This article is not simply about the term; see the WP:Refers essay. And we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I'm really starting realize why wikipedia is perceived as the biggest online joke. It seem that any type of improvement that will further the educational value it but disagrees with a single individuals opinion is deleted. Brianallen90802 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802, calling Wikipedia "the biggest online joke" is a joke, considering the many people (including students, regardless of what their teachers state) who turn to it for information and take that information seriously. Not to mention the online sites that are far bigger jokes. Anyone is free to check the references and see if Wikipedia is reporting accurately. In this case, it is. Wikipedia has rules. If you can't follow them, and/or can't collaborate, you are incompatible with editing Wikipedia. You are a part of the latest WP:Student editing at this article, and your participation here has certainly not improved my opinion of WP:Student editing. What is my opinion of WP:Student editing, you wonder? My opinion is that it's generally a bad thing. Or at least too often a bad thing. Why I feel that way is detailed at WP:Student editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802, you are a new editor coming into a page about a highly controversial topic, with a long history of discussion and debate, including from trans people such as myself. To respond to your edits being reverted by calling our work the "biggest online joke" is insulting to those of us who have put a lot of effort into treating this subject with the accuracy, impartiality, and sensitivity it deserves. Please spend more time reading this talk page and understanding the process of editing Wikipedia before submitting more edits or dismissive remarks. Funcrunch (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "accuracy, impartiality, and sensitivity"? sensitivity:The terms and defintions on this page alone are often very insensitive to the transgender community. Accuracy: I changed the portion about the GID no longer being listed as part of the DSM-5 as of 2012 and it was deleted. Not to mention that the defintion of Gender Dysphoria is wrong. Impartiality: Any attempts to change this article to make it more accurate and more politically correct but are in disagreement with your opinion seem to fall on deaf ears. I want back to school starting in 2008 and graduate soon and throughout my schooling I have yet to encounter a professor that will allow students to use wikipedia as a referenceable source. Furthermore I understand that wikipedia has rules and this article seems to be a perfect example of those rules not being in effect. Brianallen90802 (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802, while your information may or may not have been correct (I haven't checked and probably won't to remain at least somewhat impartial as a copy-editor), my revert was based on the fact that your edit needed severe copy-editing because of a lack of grammatical sense, as well as the article being about the concept of - and related information to - transgender(/-ism) rather than a full-blown discussion about Gender dysphoria. See my post below at #WP:Class assignment about making edit-requests. This will allow us to help you make appropriate edits instead of clashing in a general dispute. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802, look at why you were reverted here and here. Reasons were given with a WP:Edit summary. The rules are being followed; you simply are not as familiar with them. Wikipedia has a lot of rules, and it does not endorse political correctness at the expense of the encyclopedia. See WP:Advocacy. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia can use derogatory terms at any time, without valid reason; it shouldn't, as made clear at the WP:Offensive material guideline. But it does mean that this is an encyclopedia. Even terms that are hurtful to the transgender community, such as shemale, are covered on Wikipedia, and they are supposed to be. Furthermore, as also noted to you, there are transgender people who embrace the term transsexual. A few in the transgender community even embrace the term transvestite. These terms concern transgender people, and we should therefore address them in this Transgender article, noting how they came to be developed, what researchers think about them and what the transgender community thinks about them. Instead of assuming why you were reverted, you should read why you were reverted (if a WP:Edit summary was provided) and ask about it here on the talk page. For example, I pointed you to the WP:Refers essay. I did that because this article, while addressing the term transgender, is not about the term transgender (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT); it's about the topic as a whole. So I objected to your wording. As seen here, Funcrunch objected to your edit because it was unsourced and because of grammar issues. Funcrunch beat me to that revert; I was certainly going to revert you on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Neither Wikipedia nor any other encyclopedia (print or online) should ever be a valid source for a college or university level paper. That is not because of flaws in the model of Wikipedia, but rather a reflection of the fact that an encyclopedia is a tertiary source and that students at the college/university level should be using primary and secondary sources. --Khajidha (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Khajidha, as a lot of Wikipedians, including me, will state, people coming to Wikipedia for information should be checking the sources supporting the text. Wikipedia is a valid source in that way, if what it is reporting is accurate. A lot of college students (the ones with good sense) state that they don't simply take Wikipedia's word for matters; they use Wikipedia for the abundance of sources it has; they treat it as the tertiary source that it is. The don't cite Wikipedia; they cite its references. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn that's what I was trying to say. And what I tell my own students. Brianallen90802 mentioned using Wikipedia as a "referenceable source", exactly what you (and I) are saying it is not. It is a source of possible references, but not a good citation in and of itself for college papers.--Khajidha (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

References