Talk:Shemale/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Request for rewrite

Resolved

 – Content need to conform to standard policies including WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Disagreements can be resolved by discussing issues and WP:COI concerns apply to all editors so relying on reliable sources is likely the best course of improvement. -- Banjeboi 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article relies very heavily on the Etymology section, which essentially reprints the entire source. That source is questionable. It also relies heavily on quotes that are only cited with ISBN numbers. So, it certainly needs more "meat" and more references.

Also, it appears to have been largely influenced by a now-banned and apparently highly biased contributor, User:Lara bran. The result seems to be an very poorly written attempt at compromise between herself and several others.

There isn't much article to this article and what there is does not meet the standards expected of Wikipedia. 24.185.6.40 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agreed.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

James, for the sentence "In some contexts, the term she-male is considered derogatory, and, in some contexts, not," you offered the Dictionary.com citation, but that source only refers to the term as derogatory. Do you have any citation for the claim that it is sometimes used otherwise? You also cite Blanchard and Money, two individuals whose views of trans issues are very controversial, but also the technical terms they coined might best fit into the Transwoman article, as even Blanchard and Money do not use the term "shemale" for pre-operative trans women. Finally, not to raise a million points at once, but the statement "undergone transition partially" implies that transition has one uniform course for all trans women, the natural end of which is sex reassignment surgery. However, this is itself a fiercely debated topic. The existence of "non-op" women who do not wish to ever have genital surgery means that the intended goal or finish point of transition is not universal. As you can see from the older talk sections above, these points have been argued about before. It seems obvious that the rewrite will need to involve some decisions on these very types of controversial statements. 24.185.6.40 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I should have read the User:James Cantor page before asking all of those questions. I didn't realize you were THAT James Cantor. The clumsy edits and lack of wiki links made me think the edit was by some one well-meaning, but perhaps not-so-well-informed or perhaps new to WP. Obviously, for you to cite you coworker, Blanchard, is a clear conflict of interest. And since the other statements, as I pointed our above are unsourced, and I can see from your current arguments about WP:RS, you believe unsourced material can be deleted, I'm going to revert your edit to the lead paragraph. Frankly, Mr. Cantor, the nature of the controversy surrounding trans topics and your workplace presents an obvious conflict of interest for you editing any trans-related article. It's unprofessional and a clear violation of WP policy. I suggest, therefore, that if you disagree with the decision to revert the edit, you should immediately request arbitration. 24.185.6.40 (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am not in a conflict of interest. On WP, I am permitted not only to cite the RS works of my colleagues, I am also permitted to cite my own RS works on the topic (although I did not do so here). WP:COI/N is at your disposal.
• I have no problem with the removal of either the dictionary.com ref, nor the statement it accompanied.
• I agree entirely that there exist individuals who want to undergo some surgical procedures and not others. Just because a person's goal is partial transition does not make the procedures any less partial relative to the complete procedures that are available. The subjective feeling that one is "complete" after a partial transition does not make the transition any less partial relative to biology.
• I have no opposition to arbitration. However, WP policy is to exhaust the other methods first. If your intent, however, is not to participate in any good faith discussion to improve the page until arbitration become the only method available, then you're edits are tendacious.

To embark on how best to improve this article, I suggest you propose what text you would prefer over what I added. You may think of Blanchard and Money however you like (of course), but the existance of the formal terms (and RS's) they used to describe "she-males" is about as relevant as a fact can be to an article. (Incidentally, although I am of course a fan and colleague of Blanchard, I have little respect for Money. Yet, I was quite able to treat them equally in my edit.)
— James Cantor (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI states, "avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with" (emphasis mine). I assume you knew this and that's why you pointed out the notice board rather than the policy page. Any one even remotely familiar with trans issues or the Bailey/Blanchard/Lawrence controversy should be able to see that since the majority of published academic sources are on one side of the controversy while non-academic sources are on the other side, it is wholly outside the spirit, if not the actual wording, of WP policies for anyone from Clark, yourself, or anyone involved with Conway/James side, User:Jokestress, to edit trans-related articles on WP. And yet, you both seem to continue to do so. And the fact that you and Jokestress are both involved in the ongoing RS debate, despite the obvious COI and POV, is, to me at least, both surprising and wrong.

You appear to latch on to a small number of technical policy pages as defense for your actions on WP, actions that have included editing, in clear COI, articles about your coworkers and opposition without revealing your identity and accusations of using sock puppets. However, both sides of the ongoing controversy would do well to consider the WP:NPOV pillar ("Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes") as well as WP:DBF ("allow communal ownership to supersede personal emotional involvement"). As a NY Times article on Bailey stated, the battle is being actively fought on WP by the involved parties, which I can only assume is why both you and Jokestress are here spending time on this at all. That is entirely against the spirit and the best interest of WP as a project. Ms. James and yourself, as well as both of your respective friends and colleagues, should step away from editing articles on trans issues, because you are all too close to the very contentious disputes being covered in these articles.

It's probably true that the work going on on these WP pages will color the future view of your own work, your colleagues' and your opponents. That's all the more reason why none of you should be attempting to write your own histories or that of your work on WP. In a similar way to how the way this argument has been handled by those at Clark and their internet detractors and the media coverage of it has been an embarrassment to all trans people and the professionals working with them, continuing to edit in this manner is simply doing damage to your own reputation and the field and trans community as a whole. I'm trying desperately to avoid my comments coming across as personal attacks of the editors I've mentioned, but I will admit that my above response from this morning was written as one who was frankly appalled that this situation was going on. To see Andrea James's and your involvement, and both of you defend your ongoing involvement, was like seeing some one from the Discovery Institute editing articles on intelligent design. It's inappropriate and I would urge those editors to allow their continued work outside WP and their continued publication of reliable sources that can be utilized by non-conflicted WP editors to speak for them rather than to keep trying to engage in the dispute here on WP.

Since I am not a "wikipedian," I am going to request advice from an admin regarding the COI and edits by User:Jokestress and User:James_Cantor. It seems to me at least that, however that system works, both users should be on the WP:COI notice board, especially concerning edits around Raymond and RS's. 24.185.6.40 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You procede from a false belief: I do not in fact edit the controversy sections of trans-related pages. Several months ago, I entered into an agreement with user:Dicklyon (an old friend and former employee of Lynn Conway) that neither he nor I would edit there, and I have restricted my edits to the talkpages ever since, exactly as WP:COI suggests. You can find that agreement here. If you can convince user:Jokestress to restrict herself also from editing those pages, then I believe you will have done WP a great service. Meanwhile, you are admonishing the one of us who agrees with you.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC) — James Cantor (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Resolved

 – Image replaced, WP:BLP concerns are heightened when using someone's image for a a pejoratively used term. -- Banjeboi 12:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The current image is quite disturbing, IMHO. Scratching a transwoman's eyes out seems quite unneeded. Is this image suitable here? If so I think it should be cleaned up to restore her face and a caption to add more about who and where she is and what she's doing. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any indication that the image has any relevance to the subject. It appears to have been added more than once without discussion by an editor who has done nothing else with this article. The image may well be of a woman and its insertion here may be contrary to WP:BLP. We don't know because there is not enough information attached to the image. I have therefore removed the image pending some explanation of its origin to justify its inclusion. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Commencing rewrite

This article is quite a mess. I have reorganized the usage information chronologically, and added better sources for the current usage. I have left some pretty bad sourcing in place for the moment. Online dictionaries should not be sources. I'll see if I can find better citations. Jokestress (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your wanting to improve the article but much of that information is fine in the lede. I agree with moving the scientific bits to a below section as they are not what the average reader may expect but they still may benefit from the inclusion. This is a stub about a slang word and its usages so we can't say that everyone who uses it means the same thing. For our reader's benefit it's helpful to explain who it generally refers to and why the term is generally pejorative. Having witnessed transwomen apply the term to themselves I think it's also important that we aim for NPOV. It's not a derogatory term in all cases and it still means different things to different people. This is common in articles about slang terms. -- Banjeboi 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The James Cantor version has this:

Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a slang term for male-to-female transsexuals (transwomen) who have breasts of an adult female (through hormone replacement therapy, breast implants and/or cleavage enhancement) and may have other female secondary sex characteristics, but have not undergone genital reassignment surgery.

I propose this:

Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a derogatory slang term for male-to-female transsexual people (transwomen) who have not undergone genital reassignment surgery.

Reasons: there's no reason to make this definition convoluted. This should be clear and easy to understand for a lay audience. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article cleavage enhancement is about temporary methods of artificially enhancing cleavage, so its presence here would imply inclusion of non-operative cross-dressers, which contradicts "transsexual". That doesn't belong.

This article and its talk page have a long history of discussion of the wording of the article, and I'd urge anyone wanting to radically alter it, such as the removal of the word "derogatory" from the opening sentence, to read the talk page history.

I believe that a less technical description would be better. Something along the lines of:

Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a derogatory slang term for a male-to-female transsexual who has the general appearance of a female but retains their penis and testicles.

Then expand into a more technical description complete with the other wikilinks further into the article. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems OK, but it would be good to keep the word "person" after "transsexual." Also, in some cases the term includes people who have had an orchiectomy, so that's not quite accurate. Some people might object grammatically to the third-person plural "their." Finally, some people insist that "transsexual" only be applied to people who have had vaginoplasty, so maybe the general term "transgender" is better.

Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a derogatory slang term for a male-to-female transgender person who has the general appearance of a female but has not had vaginoplasty.

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The James Cantor version was clearer even if a bit convoluted - the excessive information, IMHO, pointed people off this article to more informative ones. Shemale is not always derogatory and it has been applied to a host of trans people including drag queens. -- Banjeboi 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Splitting usage into two sections

I propose that we split out early usage from the current usage. Cassell's gives reliably-sourced citations for early uses, including being used to describe lesbians. The term is currently exclusively used to describe transwomen who have not had vaginoplasty.

There are also tons of reliable sources from those weighing in about the term's use in the sex industry, and the pejorative connotations of the term. I am not aware of many people besides Janice Raymond, Ray Blanchard, and J. Michael Bailey who use the term uncritically. I propose we split it into two paragraphs: critics and proponents. I added three sources to help weigh the article more accurately regarding current usage:

Shemale, along with tranny, ladyboy, and other terms with similar connotations, are commonly, but not exclusively, used in pornography, escorting, and associated sex industries; videos and magazines involving such people are a common sub-genre of pornography. According to anthropologist Philip H. Herbst, shemale and she man are "Restricted to heterosexual use. The terms are not flattering." Dr. Melissa Hope Ditmore of the Trafficked Persons Rights Project writes of the current usage, "The term "she-male" is an invention of the sex industry, and most trans women find the term abhorrent." According to Professors Laura Castañeda and Shannon Campbell at the USC Annenberg School of Journalism, "Using the term she-male for a transsexual woman would be considered highly offensive and inaccurate, for it (not necessarily) implies that she is working "in the [sex] trade and retains her male genitalia." It may be considered libellous." Author Julia Serano writes that the term is "derogatory or sensationalistic."

The term has been used by some academics, notably Janice Raymond, whose controversial 1979 book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male argues that from a feminist point of view, transsexuals constitute an attack by males upon femininity. Psychologist Ray Blanchard has also used the term to describe transwomen and considers it a synonym of gynandromorph and gynemimetomorph.

I further propose we lose all that junk about gynandromorph that's covered in the linked article, as well as the irrelevant butterfly image. The James Cantor version is heavily weighted toward the few academics who use the term uncritically (which includes academics who consider it a "scientific" category, and academics who use it in its more common form, as a term of abuse, like Raymond). Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk)

If the article is greatly expanded - I'm not sure I would find that a good thing - we would need to greatly delve into the sex trade usages as that seems to be where the vast majority of usage is. I've tried to meld some of the sources presented into the last somewhat stable version.

I've re-added the butterfly image as I think it's quite illustrative and has no BLP issues to it. The Blanchard stuff is a bit tricky but fits nicely into that section. I think I summarized it fairly and pointed to relevant articles for those interested. A section could be created and added all about the emergence of shemale and, later, online pornography thus spreading the word everywhere. I'm not sure if that's really going to do any good however as the salient points seem to be addressed in the lede - the term is associated with the sex trade and covers a range of people and is usually derogatory. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeated damaging of a direct quote

Resolved

 – quote switched out for clearer and neutral one. -- Banjeboi 01:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that User:James Cantor has reinstated an edit where a direct, fully sourced historical definition has been systematically rewritten to be completely nothing like the quote from the source. I will manually repair this for the 3rd time in the space of a few days, but I am giving notice that James Cantor has reverted this page to a clearly vandalised version and will request administrator intervention if such actions continue. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

OK, POV tag needs to be accompanied by actionable items so we can address and, if needed fix items. No one's is suggesting the article is perfect but are there specific POV concerns that you feel should be addressed? If not this tag should probably go. -- Banjeboi 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag pertains to the image, which is appropriate on gynandromorph but not here. If you have a reliable source discussing "shemale" butterflies, please provide it, and we can discuss its inclusion. Jokestress (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on perjorative claims

The statement "most notable for its slang usage in a pejorative context" is sourced by [1] (Wimmin, Wimps, and Wallflowers) but the source does not support the claim of pejorative use (the actual text says "restricted to heterosexual use, the terms are not flattering", but that's all). It does support the claim that "shemale" is most commonly used in the sex industry, however.

I strongly feel the initial line should be changed to something like, "Shemale is an English noun most commonly used in a popular subcategory of pornography to refer to persons who appear to be physically female in most regards, but possess male genitals. Many transsexual women consider the term offensive because it suggests pre-operative and non-operative male-to-female transsexuals are something other than female."

Similarly, the claim "In LGBT communities, especially amongst transgender individuals, the term is considered offensive" seems overly broad without qualification of "often" or "most". This claim is sourced by [1][4][5] even though [1] indicates that some transgender women choose shemale as an identity category, [4] only says (sometimes offensive), and [5] is a highly questionable resource presumably written by a single anonymous author. An acceptable source for this would be a large national or international organization of transgender people which states in some official capacity that "the transgender community at large finds this offensive", not one person's opinion.

I know bringing this up will inflame passions. I don't want to create controversy. But this article has a historical tendency to be overrun by transwomen's POV that "shemale is pejorative" because most transwomen don't want to be called anything other than "woman". When people try to source the claim that "shemale" is a pejorative, it is sourced with websites where the material is created by a single author, usually a transwoman, who feels the same way. Not only does this not reflect what the word "shemale" means to most non-transgender people, it sends the impression that nearly all transgender people consider the term to be a slur. There are a number of transgender communities (such as various online communities with personal avatars, furry fandom both online and in real life, even entire countries like Thailand) where the term "shemale" is not generally considered offensive, even among transgender women.

In any case, the primary use of shemale is a description of a certain kind of gender/sex combination that many men are sexually and interpersonally attracted to. Yes, most transwomen find the term offensive, and that bears mention here. But most transwomen find being called "man" offensive, and that doesn't mean the article on "man" should begin: "Man is most notable for its slang use in a pejorative context against transgender women".

--75.180.20.49 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC) www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.120.118 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.133.166 (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this below listed section of text is relevant as it is more related to articles describing medical conditions. This part is also rather insensitive to sufferers of the condition in many ways or at least those who do not identify with genetic males that have augmented female breasts.

"In many instances intersex persons born with ambiguous genitalia have, at the request of their parents, or on the advice of surgeons, been surgically altered to appear more male before puberty (which may be the reason that many shemales appear to have female skeletal structure and fat distribution, feminine body hair patterns, and/or small genitals resembling those of a prepubescent boy); this often occurs in children with Reifenstein syndrome, a form of PAIS."

The term Shemale is specifically used for males with breast augmentation and not for partial mosaics, hermaphrodites and intersex individuals or surgical 'normalisation' procedures. I also agree with www.viptravesti.net that labelling the term pejorative is rather misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.173.207 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 75.180.20.49, and note that more than two-thirds of this "article" is little more than a rant against the use of the term. The ones who do NOT find the term offensive are true shemales, who are simply MTF transgendered people who have chosen to keep their male genetalia. The article says absolutely nothing about the shemales who do prefer the use of the term so as to distinguish themselves from those who've had gender reassignment surgery. Finally, the reason many shemales appear not to have developed masculine traits is simply because they're from more progressive countries who don't have any qualms about prescribing testosterone-suppressing medication before they reach puberty. Medical conditions which cause adrogen insensitivity are exceedingly rare, and could not possibly be the cause for more than a very tiny fraction of boys who do not develop as males at puberty. Furthermore, failure to develop masculine traits at puberty does not result in the development of feminine traits, as the article currently suggests. All in all, this is a very poorly written article and should be completely rewritten from an objective perspective so as to remove the strong anti-shemale and anti-porn NPOV with which it is currently dripping. 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.120 (talk)

If you can provide reliable references for any of the above comments, you're welcome to do so. I do expect, however, that some statements such as "The term Shemale is specifically used for males with breast augmentation" will not be able to be reliably referenced, as it's not accurate. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we follow what reliable sources states not what we want to write. -- Banjeboi 06:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

'Reliable sources' are usually made by academics not in touch with the situation on the ground which represents the real view. Try Urban Dictionary for example. It is very likely 'reliable sources' have never personally known any 'Shemales' or even been in the 'Shemale' club or porn scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.33.159 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by 60.53.170.20

Trans women should not be used as it confuses Transsexuals with Shemales. I remind - term is generally acceptable for shemales, especially those in the adult industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.170.20 (talk • contribs)

I moved your revision to my comment to its own section. Please do not make changes to other editors' comments. As far as "shemale" only being a slur for women who are "fully transitioned," we need a source for that. According to the source in the article, it is a dehumanizing slur for all trans women, regardless of what steps they take to transition. Jokestress (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Should start with common and current uses, because that is what most users will be looking for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.170.20 (talk • contribs)

• • • IP 60.53.170.20 is correct that the term "transwomen" is ambiguous and should not be used. Indeed, the word transwomen appears in none of the RS's providing a definition of she-male. It is Jokestress who is again missing references for her claims.
    • IP 60.53.170.20 is correct also that definitions should go from most to least common. Indeed, that is WP convention.
    • In all the RS's providing definitions, notes about negative connotations are included only in the definitions that refer to transsexuals (or similar term). The definitions refering to mixed anatomical status lack notes about negative connotation.
    • Jokestress is correct, however, that it is considered inappropriate on WP to edit other editors talk-page comments.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the lede till last, then. I propose three (possibly four) sections:

1. Original uses (especially assertive women)
2. Non-human uses (bears, snakes, etc.)
3. LGBT uses (especially sex work/porn use for trans women)

• We could split out its use as a synonym for faggot, etc. into a separate section from the trans usage.

We can discuss the order, though I recommend chronologically. It actually makes sense when you see how the term came to have each meaning over time. I'd also like to see some sourcing for this alleged distinction in how this term is used when describing trans women. It's a slur no matter to whom it is applied. The GLAAD statement was released when "she-male" was used to describe Miriam, who is not "fully transitioned" (to use your term). The journalist who thought that slur was an acceptable term finally got the clue and apologized. Jokestress (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This term is a slur, and the intro needs to explain that while we discuss changes. I have compromised and allowed my proposed edits to be taken down, but I must insist on this reference to remain in the lede while we work out the rest. Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the connotation belongs in the lede...Indeed, I have put it there myself. I disagree with using persuasive instead of descriptive language in so doing, however. Moreover, regarding any connotation, it is not possible (short of a formal analysis) ever to say what the connotation is. All anyone ever can do is describe what various folks opin about it, and people differ on this one. Assertions about what "is" or about "reality" are merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and will not resolve anything.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed introduction

The lede below is designed to describe 150+ years of uses, from the most general sense to the most specific sense.

Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a slang term used in various ways since the mid-19th century for "almost anyone who appears to have bridged gender lines." This includes assertive women and passive men in its most general sense. The term has sometimes been used in zoology as a synonym for gynandromorph, non-human animals that display combinations of male and female traits or behaviors.

Its most common contemporary usage is to describe humans in the context of sexual orientation or gender identity. It has been used to describe lesbians, gay men, and transgender people. Through its use in sex work, the term shemale has become closely associated with trans women who have female secondary sex characteristics but have not undergone vaginoplasty. Other synonyms used in pornography include ladyboy and chicks with dicks. In this context, it is considered a dehumanizing slur according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and most transwomen find the term abhorrent.

I recommend organizing the article to discuss the earliest uses (mainly agressive women), then use in zoology, then finally its use as a slur/porn term for trans women. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that that proposed lede is workable:

• Starting a definition with historical commentary instead of the definition is prolix. It buries the actual information. It is routine in WP to start with the definition before etymological commentary.
• Providing alternative definitions of slang terms in order of generality is arbitrary. (It also buries the actual information again.) It is routine in WP to go from most common use to least common use.
• It favors the weakest sources (which are questionable as WP:RS's at all) over the stronger and more numerous sources, including multiple, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals.
• It asserts as fact what is instead an opinion of activist(s). (The opinions of activists can certainly be relevant and should be included, of course; the problem is when those opinions are falsely asserted as facts.)

Thus, the proposed lead violates WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:MOS, and WP:NPOV. I propose instead returning to the version of 13:43, 3 November 2009 , which I place below for reference.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede version of 13:43, 3 November 2009

Shemale (sometimes she-male but almost never used in the form she-man) is a slang term for person with female breasts but male genitalia. In zoology, the term refers to non-human animals that display other combinations of male and female anatomy. The technical term is gynandromorph, which is used mostly in scientific contexts. Shemale is sometimes considered derogatory when applied to male-to-female transsexuals (transwomen).

Other slang terms for she-male include ladyboy and chicks with dicks. The sexual preference for persons with these physical characteristics is gynandromorphophilia or gynemimetophilia. Slang terms for individuals with such preferences include "tranny chasers" and "admirers." There are specialty genres of pornography and prostitution/escort services that cater to such individuals.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's get the rest of the article organized, then we'll deal with all the problems in the lede above. Jokestress (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemme get this right...You choose to discuss the lede by proposing one, but when someone responds to it and proposes a different lede, you decide instead not to discuss the lede at all?

The body will still be there after the lede, and WP has no time limit.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I proposed writing the lede after we get everything in the article organized a couple of days ago.[[1] Jokestress (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 60.54.97.17

I reverted much of the changes by User:60.54.97.17 because they were original research. Please discuss proposed changes here, adding reliable sources. Thanks Jokestress (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV re-added

I have re-added the NPOV tag following WP:COI edits by User:James Cantor, made to align the the article with the POV of his boss coworker Ray Blanchard. I also added a reference for the word derogatory. I also believe that we should have a section called "academic use" vs. "scientific/medical use." Separating the ideologies of Ray Blanchard and Janice Raymond is a POV move. Both hold the same points of view about the terms she-male and about trans people. Jokestress (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

has this been resolved? -- Banjeboi 04:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the scientific RS's fail to support the activists' POV, no resolution is likely without substantial input from otherwise uninvolved editors. I recommend reading the arguments and sources, and asserting your own conclusion.— James Cantor (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the main issue in your opinion? -- Banjeboi 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The main issue, in my opinion, is the use of WP by some trans activists to encourage the use of the terms they themselves prefer over the terms used by other members of the trans communities or by medical/scientific experts. There are activists who prefer terms that indicate their womanhood (such as transwoman) over terms that do not, and the term "she-male" contains includes the word "male" rather than "female." The term is used non-pejoratively, however, by sex trade workers and in sex research studies.
Rather than merely indicate the alternative uses, however, the article space is becoming another WP battleground on which community activists selectively cite the uses that they prefer and attempt to discredit those who do otherwise. (That is, instead of the article saying Some people use the term this way while other people use it that way the article is being pushed to say This term means only this one thing and all dissenters are transphobic.) This pattern has played through a great many of the trans-related articles. Rather than precipitate a repeat conflict, however, I instead encourage you to read the article and sources and come to your own opinion.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I may be missing something here but both cases are true. It is commonly used in a derogatory fashion and, similar to other slurs, has been in part either adopted or reclaimed. It is still a despised term and any scientist who had the nerve to set up a classification would seem rather disreputable whereas just noting it as a self-descriptor by those the scientist is studying would seem acceptable similar to having a list of different labels or even a blank where someone would self-identify. Blanchard's bit, IMHO, should include that his work is maligned for such usage. Meanwhile, erotic and sex industries capitalize on the use and transwomen do identify as shemale as needed to earn money, they would also just as easily identify as almost anything else conceivable and believable to appease a customer's preference. So I think it's a little disingenuous to assert the point with more emphasis than that. IMHO, it's a temporary label - even when used as a self-descriptor - not conforming to one's self-identity as much as reclaiming a word like "freak" "nigger" and "faggot" to take the sting out and dis-empower ones degraders. Usage within one's circle can be seen from a sociological view but I'm quite suspicious of adopting it well beyond that or that the number of people doing so is significant. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can suggest only that one look up the references given in the article, which do not say what the main page says they say. For example, the main page says that the term shemale "is often seen by transsexual people as a term of abuse" citing as a source Herbst (2001). Herbst (2001) does not say any such thing, however. In fact, the only comment that Herbst makes regarding the connotation of the term is "The term may also refer positively to androgyny." The second source given on the main page is an online dictionary, which has questionable status as an RS, and which says, in parentheses, "sometimes offensive," which I agree with, but which is not very neutrally conveyed by 'often a term of abuse.'

In general, the term 'shemale' is considered derogatory when applied to people other than MtF folks who have socially transitioned but not undergone gential surgery (e.g., masculine lesbians or MtF folk who have completed transition). The cites in opposition to the term are comments made by community activists who are generally postsurgical MtF folk (and, thus, for whom the term would be innaccurate and negative), who have expertise only in areas outside linguistics (such as biology), and who are expressing their personal (and non-expert) opinions about the use of the term for them rather than the use of the term in general.

To repeat my earlier comment, I agree entirely with the page reflecting the mixed status of the term, but not with using the article space to actively promote the idea that the term is or is not offensive. As a tangent, I am not actually the person who added the POV-tag to the page. Whether the current content of the page accurately conveys what is said in the cites, or adds a spin of its own, is up to you to decide for yourself after reading the RS's.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for input regarding the online dictionaries at RS/N.— James Cantor (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When referring to trans women, this is a term used by Janice Raymond, Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, and pornographers. Almost all trans women find the term and the people who use it abhorrent, as noted in the reliable source. Contorting this into some sort of value-neutral term is just another attempt to insert the POV of your boss colleague/buddy/etc. This article is a big mess thanks to drive-by edits. It lacks cohesion and fails WP:UNDUE by trying to present this as a value-neutral term. Jokestress (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When WP becomes What-Jokestress-Says-Pedia, then what Jokestress says about "almost all trans women" might be relevant (as if she spoke for almost all transwomen). Meanwhile, all we have is some of the sources (of debatable reliability) saying that some people object to the term when used in some circumstances (such as when refering to lesbians). None of the sources says anything approaching "almost all trans women" nor uses any term as laden as "abhorrent." The RS's do, however, contain what I have already said: There are people who find the term negative and there are people who find it neutral; the article should therefore reflect that. Because no one here is presenting the term as value-neutral (I have written multiple times that the term is used different ways by different people), Jokestress is debating a mirage of her own creation. (Missing from Jokestress list of who uses the term how are the sources (added to the page by people other than me) that also provide only neutral definitions, like Blanchard, devoid of negative connotation.)
Moreover, Blanchard and Bailey do not use the term to refer to postoperative folks, and Jokestress should either provide an RS showing they do or strike out her misstatement. Finally, although we collaborate on many projects, Blanchard is not my boss. Jokestress should provide evidence he is, or strike that out as well.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Most transwomen find the term abhorrent." Please read the article more carefully for the source to which I referred in my earlier comment. I can provide plenty of other sources that reflect reality about this term's usage. If you have a source that says this term is a "neutral" way to describe trans women, please provide it. Jokestress (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• After I point out that none of the cites support your claim, a response of "Go find the cite yourself" essentially proves my point. There is no such cite.
• Statements like "I can provide plenty of other sources..." are similarly unconvincing when unaccompanied by any actual RS's. I would indeed encourage you, or anyone, to locate such RS's. For what it is worth, the discussion at RS/N suggests that such RS's should be from more established sources than the online dictionaries currently appearing on the page.
• As for RS's for neutral definitions: The Oxford English Dictionary makes explicit when terms have negative connotations, and the OED entry for she-male contains none of the OED's usual notes to that effect.
• Finally, given that you have also failed to produce any RS's about who my boss is (nor for Blanchard or Bailey's use she-malefor postoperative MtF folks), you also have some striking-out to do.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Connotations section is good but must not degenerate into propaganda against adult industry or shemales working in adult industry which appears to be the opinion of the academics Laura Castañeda and Shannon Campbell or Melissa Ditmore. Their writing form fuses concepts together, preempts and confuses and does not help separate and clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.45.68 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The connotations section is a string of WP:PEACOCK descriptors for low-end sources, written in a style to pursuade rather than merely inform readers. A section that is successfully NPOV would simply indicate the fact (there are folks who feel the term is derogatory) followed by the references to the folks saying so; indeed, that is how the science/medical section is. The unnecessary quotes, descriptors of authors, and whole titles of books merely target readers to convince them of the statements rather than merely to describe the statements to them. The science/medical section is the superior format, despite that the authors, statements, and sources used there dwarf the reliability of those given the immodest connotations section.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)