Talk:Methods of passing as female

Speedy deletion contested

The editor who added the speedy deletion template claims that there are "multiple articles" about methods of passing as female. Which articles are these? As far as I can tell, this is the very first article of this nature.

There are indeed articles about hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery, but there are no articles which cover how to pass as male or as female in the context of all who may wish to do so, including crossdressers, drag kings/queens, and the broader community of trans people, many of whom will not use the more permanent methods of hormones and surgery.

The content of this article and the Methods of passing as male article was broken out of the Passing (gender) article, whose primary topic is the social aspect of passing, not the mechanics of how it is accomplished. These "mechanics" sections described the various forms of clothing, prosthetics, makeup, and other methods used for passing, and these seemed better-suited to their own pages, which I created.

There are currently several articles about the various temporary methods: Breast binding and Packing (phallus) for passing as male, and Cleavage enhancement, Female masking, and Hip and buttock padding for passing as female. These could potentially be combined into their respective methods-of-passing articles, or the methods-of-passing articles could exist in their current form, as a way for users to find the articles about the various methods.

Regardless, I have not yet seen evidence demonstrating that Methods of passing as female meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Riverstones (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this article.

1. It's a how-to guide, which are expressly discouraged at WP:NOTHOWTO
2. The sources are not reliable by WP standards. Other wikis and personal web pages are the epitome of unreliable sources.

Can you honestly claim that this isn't intented as a RuPaul's Drag U self-improvement type of article? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Passing (gender) is largely about passing as viewed in a sociological context. The sections #Passing/not passing and #Critique sections, particularly, could easily be expanded and improved with writings from other academics and gender theorists on what it means to be viewed as a member of a gender, from various cultural standpoints, and in different time periods throughout history.

Part of that is making room for this content. I see what I referred to, above, as the "mechanical" aspects of passing as being a separate topic from that of the sociological aspects. As I said, this article was created by breaking out existing content from Passing (gender) into the respective female and male "Methods..." articles in an effort to better organize these two separate types of content. And, again, there were five existing articles on various methods; with these "umbrella" articles available as a sort of directory or list format, or as a place where the content could eventually be combined. I don't think it would be best to set about deleting all seven of these namespaces.

I understand and agree with your concern that we should adhere to WP:NOTHOWTO. That is something to keep in mind when writing articles about activities in which people engage. The Snowboarding article, for instance, contains a section describing different snowboarding techniques, without wandering into what amounts to an online snowboarding lesson. Perhaps we can keep these ideas in mind when approaching this content.

After reading WP:NOTHOWTO, the message that I took away is that editors should avoid an instructional tone in their writing. As the section reads: "an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. I really do think it is possible to rewrite whatever areas of this content might be problematic in a way that would be appropriate.

As far as sources are concerned: there is certainly room for improvement, but I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bath water in this case.

So. I really do think that this content has a place on Wikipedia. I feel strongly that the Passing (gender) article namespace is not the right place for this content, and that this content can be reviewed and rephrased whereever necessary to avoid an instructional tone. Just as different methods of painting and sculpture are described on Wikipedia, just as different sports and activities with their relevant tools and equipment are described, so, too, can crossdressing be described in an encyclopedic manner. If the content is of poor quality or badly sourced, I think the most constructive course of action is to improve the content, not do away with it.

Are there any specific areas that you feel to be in need of work? I would very much like to work together to improve this article and other related articles. I look forward to your reply. Riverstones (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I also would just like to point out that many of the crossdressing-related articles are badly neglected. There wasn't even a good organizational structure linking the articles until very recently: I created Template:Crossdressing just this week. I did this in the hopes that the template would help readers and editors alike to explore the topic of crossdressing in greater depth. I also hope it will increase editors' ability (and likelihood) to contribute to these neglected articles. So, please keep in mind that many of these articles are very much at a starting point, and probably have not been reviewed by very many people at this time.

I do intend to continue working on the crossdressing-related articles myself, and I invite any suggestions or ideas that would help improve them. I just ask that you try to avoid dismissing the articles and their content altogether—particularly on the basis of poor tone or shabby sourcing, because these can be addressed. I see there being a real opportunity for growth and improvement in this area of Wikipedia, and I intend to contribute positively towards those goals. Riverstones (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And props to you for doing so. I hope I've demonstrated a willingness to work with you on these topics, at least in an advisory capacity. I do have to disagree with the idea that Passing (gender) is not an appropriate place for such info - the article itself is not so large that sub-articles need be created and a section on Methods would, IMHO, fit right in. Regardless of where the info ends up, though, the sourcing definitely needs improvement. What's there now (or at least when I last looked) is not going to pass muster. I'm sure there are sources out there, but you probably have a better idea of where to find them. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this article references other articles, some of which are extensively referenced. It should be quite feasible to add some of those references to this article if necessary. I am a little surprised that it has been split out of Passing (gender), considering that when I created that article a few years ago, this was the content that I primarily intended to include in that article. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)