Talk:Shemale/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

archiving being disabled?

I saw that this page has been archived before and that User:Lara bran disabled it without explaination. It's very cluttered with old stuff so I enabled it again. Since the page has been archived before, should it keep being done or is there a good reason to stop now? Emile Carter 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of threads older than 10 days is too soon. After 20 sections, I will archive manually, but bot sending 10days older thread will leave talk page blank, soon. Lara_bran 06:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

term meaning

It is clearly original research to say that shemale is derogatory term for shemales themselves. No ref says that, but that is put forward in first sentence of article, clearly not acceptable. Also term breast and penis are scientific terms, no reason to avoid those terms. Lara_bran 06:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not put forward in first sentence of article. A.Z. 06:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Term is derogatory especially refering to transgendered people(see refs in article), while shemale constitutes very small part of transgendered people. No ref says it is derogatory for themselves. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Term is derogatory is not WP:OR, but "whom for" it is derogatory is clearly WP:OR. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say whom for it is derogatory. You're welcome. A.Z. 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Shemale is a derogatory term for a person who..." am i reading article wrong? Lara_bran 07:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is either me or you. My feeling is that it's you. A.Z. 07:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Some users are avoiding term breast because a transwoman need not necessarily have a breast. Please dont hide detail and mislead, we disambig term in an encyclopedia. Also, first sentence i avoided term "for", which is WP:OR, which was reverted saying that is a grammatical mistake, which is not. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If a shemale doesn't need to have a breast, then you can't define the term as someone who has a breast.

As for the alleged original research, in my opinion, the intended meaning of the sentence "In current usage, shemale is a usually derogatory term for a person who..." is:

• "In current usage, shemale is a usually derrogatory term to refer to a person who...", not
• "In current usage, shemale is a term thought to be derogatory by people who...". A.Z. 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks A.Z.. A transwoman doesn't need to have a breast, but shemale does have breast, necessarily. and these two terms are different, hence disambig is necessary, hence the term.

Derogatory term to someone, derogatory term for someone is one and same, i beleive. So i seperated derogatory term by commas like "Shemale, a derogatory term, is a person who...". It is like this(seperate) in every ref we quoted, some 5 of them. Lara_bran 05:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence seems wrong to me. Our article on faggot (epithet) says "Faggot is a generally pejorative term for a homosexual or effeminate man." Our article on nigger says "Nigger is a pejorative term used to refer to dark-skinned people." I don't see how, if shemale is derogatory, it could not be derogatory to shemales as well. If the term is derogatory, then it means more than just a description of what it refers to. A description would be "someone with breasts and penis" or "someone with a penis who looks like a female". If that were what "shemale" meant, it would not be derogatory. Thus, you can't say "shemale is a person that has breasts and a penis", you ought to say "shemale is a derogatory term to refer to a person with breasts and a penis." A.Z. 05:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not like faggot in case of shemale. We have to speak on basis of refs, we cant conclude shemale is derogatory for shemale. Shemale is person with breasts and penis, but it is derogatory to transgendered people(see ref cited), while shemale is very small subset of transgendered people. Can i take consensus for adding term breast to disambiguate term shemale from term transwoman? - i think this is not controversial. Lara_bran 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Lara bran, the article already says that shemale refers to pepole that have breasts. The reference says that, the article says that, and there's consensus for that. This is not controversial.

I will oppose any sentence that calls people with breasts and penis shemale, becuase this is a derogatory term and Wikipedia cannot use derogatory terms to refer to people. A.Z. 05:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Im really sorry, i dint notice, term breast was added after reverting me. Issue closed. Lara_bran 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I attribute it to kind of edit summary "i received" in article's history. Lara_bran 07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Shemale is person with breast and penis. It is derogatory for transgendered people. shemale is small subset of transgendered person" This much is available through refs. Shemale is derogatory to shemales themselves will be WP:OR, and no ref says like this, but only wikipedia says this, that too in first sentence of article. "Shemale is derogatory", no issues, "shemale is derogatory to shemales" is WP:OR, and no ref says so. Lara_bran 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose

• Shemale (sometimes she-male), usually a derogatory term, is a person who appears to be female, possessing both breasts and male genitalia.

This would be according to all refs and no WP:OR. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence seems wrong to me. If the term is derogatory, then it means more than just a description of what it refers to. A description would be "someone with breasts and penis" or "someone with a penis who looks like a female". If that were what "shemale" meant, it would not be derogatory. Thus, you can't say "shemale is a person that has breasts and a penis", you ought to say "shemale is a derogatory term to refer to a person with breasts and a penis." A.Z. 06:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather we reproduce one of our refs which do not have copyright with minor changes. Will that be fine? No ref(of more than 5 refs) bothered to say what you said "ought to say", no ref, currently we are posting our own new def in wikipedia. Lara_bran 07:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The first reference says "shemale: A term, usually derogatory, used most often in the porn industry for a pre-op transsexual who has already developed breasts but still has an intact penis." That's what we are saying in the article. A.Z. 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, my proposed version echoes that. Mind you sentence can be read without "usually derogatory" since it is btw 2 commas, it is common practice to read ommitting phrase btw commas for simplicity. Now first ref says "shemale: A term used most often in the porn industry for a pre-op transsexual who has already developed breasts but still has an intact penis." and adds "shemale is derogatory term" without mentioning whom all it is derogatory. Another ref says term is derogatory to Transgendered people. Refs do not say shemale is deorgatory to shemale tehmselves. And refs mention derogatory because real world esp. academics is censored for minors, and term shemale is "not always" derogatory unlike faggot etc. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, shemale is not always derogatory. In fact, the source referred to above by A.Z. confirms that. According to Wiktionary, the meaning of Derogatory relevant to this discussion is:

1.Tending to derogate, or lessen in value; expressing derogation; detracting; injurious; -- with from to, or unto.

Acts of Parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent Parliaments bind not. --w:Blackstone.

His language was severely censured by some of his brother peers as derogatory to their other. --w:Macaulay.

This meaning does not reflect how the term is used in the porn industry. In the porn industry it is a label and marketing term, such as Black, BBW, or Gay. Terms such as Nigger and Faggot are certainly not in common use in the porn industry. As a marketing term, it would seem antithetical for the porn industry to use a term that lessens the value of its performers. This is why I believe it's important that the article never say or imply the term is always derogatory. It simply is not. In fact, going back to the source quoted above by A.Z., the term is "most often used in the porn industry", thus can it even be said the term is usually derogatory? If it is not derogatory as used in the porn industry, which is where the word most often occurs, then one could say it is sometimes derogatory at most. --Patrick80639 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the responses of the editors to the last time Patrick80639 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an obvious single role account, brought this strawman argument up. [1]There have been numerous other repetitions of this 'porn usage makes it less derogatory' silliness, check the archives for tons and tons of meandering claims by anons and single-role accounts seeking to reduce the obvious derogatory nature of the term - without a single valid citation or source for their claims. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I ignore you, but I feel the need to respond to personal attacks. Please stay on topic and refrain from insulting me. Your accusations are false, I have contributed to other articles. Your behavior is inapropriate and offensive. --Patrick80639 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic, indeed. PLEASE report me if you feel calling you a 'single-role account' is a personal attack (it's not). Your contribs make that fact very clear, to say nothing of the fact that you have repeated your argument here while simply disregarding the last round of responses you got. That's incredibly disrespectful to the editors who, in good faith, talked thru this same 'argument' with you last time (and to which you have not responded in kind). In any case and whatever you decide, I stand by my actions and you should stand by yours. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In following your advice to stand by my actions, here are a couple references that reflect my claim that the term "shemale" is not alwyas derogatory. One is a dictionary on a popular Gay entertainment website, http://www.gaydemon.com/dicktionary/shemale/. As an example of its prominence, Alexa.com shows it has a ranking similar to that of startrek.com, for example. Also, this is an article published by the Toronto Star, Canada's highest circulation newspaper according to Wikipedia, using and treating the term in a manner which is obviously not derogatory or perjurative: http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_05.30.02/arts/missshemale.php. I believe these sources are reliable and demonstrate the term is not soley derogatory. --Patrick80639 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. The first reference clearly states "Some transgender women find the term shemale offensive.", so I'm not sure what new information you'd validate with that cite (to say nothing of it's verifiability, etc.)

However, that Eye Weekly article is definitely interesting - I look forward to your edits reflecting the use of the term in that context (an article in a weekly online magazine (owned by Toronto Sun Newspapers) about a beauty pageant held by an 'shemale entertainer' in a gay club in 2002) for the article. I'm interested to see how readers reacted to the piece as well. Anyway thanks for that second reference and I look forward to the edit you think will improve the article accordingly. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Oh hey - look at that! What a surprise. A letter to the editor a few weeks after that article was printed objecting to the use of the derogatory term - here specifically objecting to a derogatory term for transgendered sex workers being used to apply to transgendered people in general. My emphasis. [2] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Re "Shemale persuasion" (Arts, May 30). I was reading the article in your paper the other day about the shemale beauty pageant. I noted that the pageant organizer Amanda Taylor listed her previous or current professions as stripper, choreographer and stand-up comedian. In light of the fact that her business advertisement is prominently featured in your paper's shemale sex advertisements, I can think of another label that would apply.

The sidebar you ran as "Shemales for dummies," while technically accurate, glossed over a lot of stuff. "Shemale" is the term generally used for transgendered sex workers. It is predominantly considered insulting and I take significant umbrage at the fact that all transgendered people who have not had or do not wish to have genital surgery are lumped into this demeaning label. I am a journalist and community activist. I work to better people's lives. I also happen to be transgendered. Whether I ever choose to have genital surgery is my business alone. I am not a shemale and frankly, given the depictions of shemales in your paper, I am glad I am not."

If anything, the utter lack of cites to support a general case and the specific use of the term in this context, combined with this the 'on-the-record' objection to its use, seems to me to prove my point that the term is pejorative and that there has been no case made that it is not - just the offhand use of the slur by those in the sex industry themselves. In this instance, very conveniently for my argument this particular usage was objected to, on the record, in the paper itself... but that won't always the case. Will the lack of a specific rebuttal to each and every future 'example' like this diminish the derogatory nature of the term? No. The popularization and use of the term in the sex industry does not diminish its pejorative nature. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Will the lack of a specific rebuttal to each and every future 'example' like this diminish the derogatory nature of the term?" Actualy, yes it will in reagrds to an objective article about the term. These aren't just "examples", they are sources I plan to cite if I edit the article to reflect the nature of the term more accurately. They meet the guidelines of Wikipedia in regard to reliable sources. If anything, just to humor me, please give me a logical rebuttal of how the Toronto Sun article I referenced does not clearly display the term is not always derogatory. Would it be possible to find a similar article anywhre in the mainstream press if, hypothetically, the term nigger or faggot was used instead? The obvious answer is no. --Patrick80639 02:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think letters to editors meet the guidelines for Wikipedia Reliable Sources. --Patrick80639 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously trying to argue that an article in that publication meets WP:RS, but a letter to the editor about that same article in the same publication does not? Moreover, a letter whose content corroborates the info from the WP article's numerous other references? I think you'll have a lot of trouble arguing that one.

Your 'Weekly Eye' source does not prove your thesis, it disproves it. It's an article in a public newspaper about a transgendered sex worker that refers to transgendered people in general as 'shemales'. My response above was clear - and I just gave you the rebuttal, but I'll try to rephrase it again.

The article's use of the term prompted a specific objection to the use of that term in that way in the form of a printed letter to the editor. So this incident distilled is:

• 'article about sex worker refers to tg's as 'shemales' in weekly sex industry-affiliated magazine (in which she herself advertises 'shemale' services)',
• 'private citizen writes in to object to that term on specific grounds' and
• You're arguing that's somehow reflective of a non-derogatory use. That is plainly ridiculous. The citizen's grounds for objection (that 'shemale' is a derogatory sex industry term that's inappropriate for use to describe tg's) are the very lines this whole 'derogatory' issue has centered around.

The rebuttal is the existence of the objection in the form of that letter to the editor. This 'article' and the 'letter to the editor' in context are just another example that proves the use of the term is offensive, at least to enough people to be reflected in a letter to the editor. You've strengthened that argument, not weakened it.

And again, whether you provide 10, 20 or 50 uses of the word 'shemale' in such sex industry contexts (by sex workers, in sex industry papers or movies, etc. which have no such convenient rebuttals) will not reduce the derogatory nature of the term. Again, The popularization and use of the term in the sex industry (as it is used in this example of yours) does not diminish its pejorative nature. Would you mind responding to that statement?

Last, as far as 'nigger', the terms are not equivalent and facile comparisons are not helpful. I won't make them but I'll dig up some links tomorrow that might point you to the last few times that argument has been made by anons and single-role accounts on this talk page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see how your opinion on single-role accounts is relevant to this discussion. To address your complaint about the sources being related to the porn industry, here are some articles that have nothing to do with it: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003502723,00.html, http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/toronto_2003/torsun-030827.html, http://torontosun.com/News/OtherNews/2007/05/05/4155792-sun.html (headline). They display the use of the term in a non-deragotary way. Also, here is a link to a musician's maxi album on MSN titled "Shemale": http://music.msn.com/album/?album=41558251. These all meet Wikipedia Reliable sources. I am not saying it is never derogatory. I am however saying it is not primarily derogatory or at the least, sometimes derogatory. --Patrick80639 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The link about the murder is about a sex-worker, sorry about that, my mind skipped out on that. --Patrick80639 02:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you're googling and cherry-picking articles from tabloids like "The Sun" (known for risque or 'insensitive' talk) to try to provide an overriding view to Webster's New Millenium Online Dictionary. Good one.

You'll notice 2 of your articles use the term in 'quotes', indicating it's not entirely applicable. The word is indeed derogatory (as supported in numerous cites here). You've already lost that argument over and over, but you keep coming back. That's why your existence as a single-role account is in question. Your account exists seemingly to repeat this argument, in order to provide justification for WP to describe this word as 'not primarily derogatory', despite the direct evidence from numerous sources far more reliable than any of your fringe articles - like, for example, numerous dictionaries and etymological sources.

And again, each of your articles (while interesting) again display uses of the term that are at best ignorant of the derogatory nature of the term, none (nor the preponderance of them) reflect a specifically non-derogatory use, just a use that isn't intentionally derogatory. Using the word twice as much as this would not reduce it's derogatory nature. Send 20 more. Spend all night googling. You might find a few more you can craft a tendentious and wandering argument around.

Last, re: [3] 'Shemale' in quotes reflects the questionable use of the word, and the fact that the victim was a sex worker wasn't at issue - most relevant to this article on 'Shemale' is the fact that the word was used in the victim's web site.

The word is a pejorative slur. There still hasn't been a single cite to specifically establish otherwise, though I welcome it still. For now, your argument (and this editor) is tired and done. Night! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) - I think Patrick needs to read WP:HORSEMEAT at this point - Alison ^❤ 03:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Essays are POV's, one need not read. I strongly oppose any personal comments in article's talk page, there are user RfC's or even user talk for that. Term is not always derogatory, to be frank more than 90% its not derogatory. But refs dont forget to mention that, because derogatory terms are always played safe. Current def first sentence of article says term is always derogatory, and also does not mention whom it is derogatory. This should go. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The current sentence does not say 'always derogatory', it says 'usually derogatory', which despite months of repetitive filibuster by single-role and anon accounts here, remains well-cited. The rest of what you have said above is alternately incomprehensible and laughable. 90%? Please. 'always played safe'? 'whom it is derogatory'? Please. These are repetitions of your prior unsubstantiated arguments - but I do have to say thanks for staying non-disruptive (avoiding reverts and unfounded edits) and talking about it here, though. And goodnight for real this time :)-- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Lara, personal comments on this page are counter-productive to the discussion and should be avoided. Two of the sources stating it's always or sometimes offensive are indeed opinion pieces. It's encouraging to see a consensus building on here for this issue. --Patrick80639 04:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Usually derogatory for someone" is clearly misleading and gramatically incorrect. Whom it is derogatory is stated by one ref. But im unable to arrange it. Let me give a go, first is current def. Lara_bran 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be a "personal comment", Lara, but it's not an ad hominem one. I've just clarified that on my talk page with Patrick. And yes, it's an essay, not policy, but it higly appropriate here. My point was that this has been done to death at this stage and there's nothing left to do, really. Please don't read any more than that into it - Alison ^❤ 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, but you supported "a perticular ad hominem user, who uses it in even article edit summaries" by your words. What is done to death? what enough? "for" is stated in not a single ref for your kind information. Every ref keeps "derogatory" seperately, i dont think you people cant comprehend this. Lara_bran 04:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I understand your question here. Are you saying that not every ref. notes the derogatory nature of the term? - Alison ^❤ 06:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, clarified below. Lara_bran 07:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed first paragraph in lead section

1. In current usage, shemale (sometimes she-male) is a usually derogatory term for a person who appears to be female, possessing both breasts and male genitalia.
2. Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a person who appears to be female, possessing both breasts and male genitalia. The term is considered derogatory, especially when referring to transgender people.^{ref no. 4}
3. Shemale (sometimes she-male), usually derogatory term, is a person who appears to be female, possessing both breasts and male genitalia.
4. Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a term, usually derogatory, used to refer to a person who appears to be female, possessing both breasts and male genitalia.

or this entire discussion was silly and here is a simple solution: The term can be complimentary or pejorative. I think it depends on the intention of the user.

Comments

def #2 is much comprehensive. Lara_bran 04:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the last answer you got to this identical suggestion. Editors here have been through this with you over and over, Lara. Enough. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

that user left speachless for reply to that, please care to see my reply and his next comments. Lara_bran 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's wrong and disingenous of you to say. You changed the topic after he posted that reply, but he then answered your next barely-understandable and fragmented comment in good faith, in his very next reply, here .I'll ask you again to stop endlessly and incomprehensibly repeating your arguments, from ignoring other users' responses and most of all to give this topic, from which you have been blocked once for disruption, alone - at the very least until you can contribute something new. In misstating others' edits and continually beating this one-trick dead horse, your conduct is plainly becoming disruptive. So, I'm not going to feed it any further. good night. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Def 2 refers to a person not to a term. There's a world of difference, as has been pointed out before, and this completely changes the context - Alison ^❤ 05:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference i agree. But all refs say this. What current article(wikipedia) says is "shemale is derogaory term for actual shemale", which is wrong. "actual shemale" is what all refs say. Lara_bran 05:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

After eliminating this wrong thing, next would be weightage to "derogatory" per WP:UNDUE, whether to mention in first sentence or second sentence. Lara_bran 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're flat wrong. Only one of the online refs at least can be read as referring directly to 'shemale' as a 'person', 4-5 of the others all refer to 'shemale' as a term, as slang, etc., and not as a 'person'... that is, if I even understood what you wrote. And Lara_bran, on that note, you need to know that your English is terrible very difficult to understand. It's a problem for people trying to respond to you, and you should really try to improve your English if you want your ideas to be understood properly on en.wikipedia.org. Anyway I'm gonna stop now, time for milk-n-cookies. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that saying that her English is terrible was rude and unnecessary. A.Z. 06:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I was kind of worked up. I am finding it difficult to understand all of Lara's arguments but I don't want to inflame the situation. Struck and revised. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is visible difference between def1 and def3. But note that both mention that the term is derogatory like all refs we have. But of these which one is correct, def1 or def3, is the conflict. but def3 is replica of mit.edu, but def1 is not. Also note that all versions mention that the term is derogatory, though we keep def2 in suspention for now. Lara_bran 07:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify "visible difference" between def1 and def3. Def1 specifies shemale is derogatory to whom, which is not supported by any ref, which is wrong. While def3 does not say term is derogatory to whom. Lara_bran 07:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint/argument just doesn't make sense. As has been explained to you a number of times in this thread, it's inappropriate to refer to a person with a derogatory term. Accordingly the article refers to it as a 'term', not a 'person' (as per #1). However, you continue to ignore that point and the discussion above, so I have just reverted your edit as unjustified. Please don't ignore other users' comments (to say nothing of falsely accusing them of 'harassment' and threatening them) and let the discussion continue here before making edits you know to be problematic and controversial (so say nothing of flatly wrong). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If "shemale is term" or "shemale is person" is the conflict, me ready for "term". All but proper nouns are dictionary terms. I have proposed def4, i will explain further if objection to that. Lara_bran 04:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You specifically objected to a version with 'usually derogatory' in commas (like 'Def4') in your comment here, saying 'it is common practice to read ommitting phrase btw commas for simplicity." And now you're seeking to introduce a version where the important and well-cited 'usually derogatory' would be re-placed into a 'commonly omitted' comma clause? That seems to me to be a glaringly inconsistent argument... unless it is a backhanded effort on your part to marginalize the term's derogatory nature.

As it's becoming increasingly difficult to determine exactly what your actual arguments are (to say nothing of whether they have any consistency), and as this article's current introductory sentence is the best of all (it being a result of numerous edits by numerous editors) I would suggest that the best course of action here (both grammatically and in terms of dealing with this overall issue of yours) is to leave unchanged, as you are the only one driving this relentless (and ultimately pointless) exercise. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Let me explain prob with def1. we take (usually) == (80% of the times). Now, def1 does not say what shemale is in rest of the 20% times; does not specify at all. It is gramatically incorrect. But def 4 says term is 80% times derogatory, 20% of times not derogatory. Lara_bran 04:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"But def 4 says term is 80% times derogatory, 20% of times not derogatory?" What are you talking about? It says no such thing. Moreover, the inclusion of 'In current usage' is unique to Def1 (the actual introduction), making it superior for that reason as well... Lara, WP:HORSEMEAT may just be an essay, but you really need to read it at this point. You're not even beating the horse anymore, just kicking around the bones. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are spamming talk page, since long, please refrain from multiple edits and unnecessary personal comments, and let other editors post their reply. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not attacks on other contributors. If you post the same issue to this talk page over and over and over, and ignore (or indeed, delete) the responses you receive, you can't possibly expect others to refrain from answering you again and again and again. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments like the above were, are and will be ignored. thanks. Lara_bran 13:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Def1 is clearly inconsistent/incorrect per grammer. This should be removed at the soonest possible. Lara_bran 13:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to ignore me if you like - while that's a highly unproductive approach to take for WP editing, that's your choice. However, you haven't provided any rationale why the current version is inconsistent/incorrect per grammar - and your edits indicate you may not have the grasp of English grammar needed to make such an assessment. In any case, I look forward to any edits that improve the article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is all an WP:ENGVAR problem?

I noticed a specific comment that Lara made earlier. "Term is not always derogatory, to be frank more than 90% its not derogatory." This got me to wondering about whether perhaps the problem is a variations in english language problem. He is in India, and presumably english is a second language for him based on his frequent grammatical errors and his misunderstanding of guidelines, etc that native english speakers appear to have no trouble understanding.

Perhaps the issue is that the word shemale is actually used as the normal term for a pre-op or non-op TS in India and Lara is simply assuming that that should be the case worldwide. Clearly, outside the pornography industry, the term is virtually always used in a derogatory manner in western countries. I'm wondering if perhaps what is needed is to find cites for the use of the term in India and cover it as a special case of english variation. --AliceJMarkham 08:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And you are trying to burry court reference? What about academic refs in article? Lara_bran 08:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The court reference is not buried. It is right here on this talk page for discussion. I just noticed that the miszabot setting was 10 days and have changed that back to 30 like I had it in the first place. I don't know why whoever put it back in changed it to 10 but putting it back to 30 should give adequate time to respond in that saction. In case you aren't aware of it, archiving only occurs the specified number of days after the last edit in that section. --AliceJMarkham 02:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Lara has just accused Alice of 'harassment' for posting this here. Lara, please try to be civil and refrain from false accusations. Alice has made a useful post here asking about English usage of 'shemale' in your native country. The 'court reference' discussion (which you have ignored thus far) is here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please go through history of this talk page to see kind of harrassment for which he was given warning for the second time. And "new user" User:Emile Carter, who was appreciated much, changed it to 10 days. That was a single purpose account, now discarded. Lara_bran 05:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly, outside the pornography industry, the term is virtually always used in a derogatory manner in western countries. " I think we found a good inspiration for the start of this article. I have been thinking of some way to differentiate the derogatory and non-derogatory use of the term within and outsied the adult-entertainment industy. Also, here is a source that does not refer to the term as perjorative and is pretty concise: http://www.teenaids.org/Educators/Glossary/tabid/81/Default.aspx --Patrick80639 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created archive for references HERE. Patrick, please keep a copy of your references there. This automatic archiving will leave page blank regardless of how many topics left in this page. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a very practical idea. I will add my references later on today, if time permits. --Patrick80639 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I copied it all. Thats much easier than the searching you did. Thanks for sources. Lara_bran 05:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not always derrogatory

in informal conversations with friends that fit some (if not most) of the descriptions on this article, they expressed that many of them have no objection to the use nor consider it negative at all if they can trust that the person who is saying it has nothing bad in mind when they use this word (kinda similar to how many descendants of africans have no or little issue with the word nigger ). But unfortunatly other than my word that I had such a conversation and was told those things I have nothing else to bring as proof here :/ --201.93.237.200 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agreed that intent can weigh in and perhaps in should be qualified as such. Benjiboi 17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Article states is a usually derogatory term which I feel is accurate and covers this concern. Benjiboi 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked def, the term is not always derogatory, also removed "in current usage" which is redundant. Lara_bran 08:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that says when the term isn't derogatory? If not, I recommend we keep the wording "is a usually derogatory term". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I found a reference and added it to the lede). Benjiboi 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also replaced the redundant 'comma clause' ('term, usually derogatory,') in favor of the more direct 'usually derogatory'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Replacing comma clause means different. It IS in comma clause in all refs. Replacing comma clause makes sentence vague and not supported by ref. SatyrTN, no ref(not even once) says it is "always derogatory". Lara_bran 04:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to SatyrTN for updating refs. But still im unable to read ref, since url provided does not provided does not open those pages. Hence updating or removing url would be appropriate, though i have no dispute over this perticular issue. Lara_bran 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

December 2007 speedy

I've declined the opportunity to speedy-delete this well-researched and thoroughly-cited article and removed the associated tag. If someone feels that this is sufficiently "non-encyclopedic" to warrant deletion, discussing it here would be a better place to start that process. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the article even though I've worked on it. The article has a bit of a history, having been deleted, deletion reviewed, re-created, fought over by a now-blocked sock puppeteer (who I think wanted it to say that this was a common term with no negative connotations) and generally had a lot more attention than it deserves. As a consequence, it's a better quality article than other far more deserving articles. I think that deletion now would be rather ironic but not productive. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I don't have any opinion one way or the other but I think this article has enough scholarship in it that speedy deletion is not at all warranted. I suspect "non-encyclopedic" was an encoded way of saying "I don't like this topic and wish it didn't exist". Accounting4Taste:talk 15:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we get that quite a bit in LGBT topics. It's a reflection of the bigotry that exists in the real world. Personally, I don't believe that an article that has been through AfD should ever be eligible for a speedy tag again after that. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and clean-up tags

Jokestress, with the rewrites and additional sources I think these tags can be removed.[4] If not could you provide some actionable items so other editors can address the concerns? -- Banjeboi 21:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the image. It's not relevant to this article and should be removed. After that, let's discuss a one-paragraph lede that summarizes the article. Jokestress (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started a separate section for POV tag as that would seem to be specific issues.

I think the image is fine and helps cast that this slang term is tied to actual scientific issues. I think this aids our readers into finding articles and subjects that they may not know exists but are related. The image is fine, it not only shows a neutral example of something in nature that transcends gender it also is of a subject that is used as a symbol within transgender communities.

I've started a separate section for the lede so we can keep things a bit more clear. -- Banjeboi 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the image after no discussion for over 6 weeks. Jokestress (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Per WP:Lede, The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.

It sounds like you feel it should be shorter and anything relevant moved below? Ledes aren't required to be one - or any set number of paragraphs - as much as meet the above guidelines. Does this summarize your concern? -- Banjeboi 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an article of this length usually has a one-paragraph lede, which in this case should summarize all the uses. All the stuff about the porn term should be in that section. Jokestress (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if the use of the word "transsexual" in the lede is accurate. The term "transsexual" has a specific meaning within a medical/psychological context, and it is impossible to say if all "she-males" identify as "transexual" men or women, or if they have pursued diagnosis as such. One can think of several types of people who would describe themselves as "she-male" in a pornographic setting, and not all of them would be "transsexual". Drawing conclusions about the internal feelings of "she-males" doesn't seem an appropriate treatment of the term.

And if we take the colloquial meaning of the term "transsexual", leaving medical aspects aside, is it accurate to link the two terms in such an offhanded manner? Definitions in language are initially fluid, and codifying them in writing on such a source as a dictionary (or wikipedia) has the effect of bringing the debate over meaning to a close. From reading the archives it seems there is an effort here to make the terms interchangeable on the part of some interested parties. I'm not sure that pushing an agenda like that so blatantly should go unchallenged, especially where minority groups are concerned. Saghani (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)