Talk:Trans man/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wording in lede

Per this edit: Colonial Overlord and I are referring to a discussion on the Trans woman talk page in which they are currently the only editor arguing against the wording "a trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." In that discussion it was noted that the same wording should be used on both the trans man and trans woman page. Hence an IP editor changed the lede on this page to read "a trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth". Another editor reverted this as vandalism but I reverted back and explained why it was not. If other editors want to revert to the previous wording of "A trans man is a transgender person who was assigned female at birth but whose gender identity is that of a man", lets discuss it here first, but please read the parallel discussion over at the trans woman page as well for context. Funcrunch (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And let's not have perfectly parallel discussions on both talk pages. Consensus at the first discussion, at Talk:Trans woman, should qualify as local consensus here, as well. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this article can include the sentence "A trans man (sometimes trans-man or transman) is a man who was assigned female at birth." For this to be acceptable to have in a Wikipedia article, it would have to be the case that it was a fact that a 'trans man' is 'real man' so to speak - but it isn't, it's a subjective matter of opinion. What constitutes a 'real' man (or woman) is, as we all know, a matter of debate, so Wikipedia cannot just claim that a 'trans man is a man'. I'm not sure why my previous edit was reverted given its logical consistency, but does anyone have a problem with this as a replacement opening sentence: "A trans man (sometimes trans-man or transman) is a person who identifies as a man but who was assigned female at birth."? This removed the subjective opinion that 'a trans man is a man' while still respecting that a trans man genuinely identifies that way. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

One could get into a truly tangled epistemological discussion over this, I guess. It's a genuine slippery slope with parallels in various articles on diverse topics. What constitutes fact versus opinion? Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources have to say, and we rely on consensus to decide what that is. It has been my impression that the prevalent contemporary thinking, according to a preponderance of reliable sources, supports the current wording. I'll leave a note at WikiProject LGBT Studies to bring this to the attention of editors who are likely more familiar with those sources than I am. I'd also note, for the record, that a parallel question exists at Trans woman; at that article, the change you've made twice has not been reverted again. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

With respect, I think this issue is more clear-cut than that. To state, in any context, "a trans man is a man" is a value judgement. Many of us may believe a trans man to be a kind of 'man', but they are no more right or wrong than those who believe the opposite. But putting aside the actual logic of the argument, surely as there is real-world debate over whether a trans man is a 'real man' (again for want of a better phrase) it cannot be presented without qualification? I don't understand how my suggested revision could cause any offence to any party, and I think it certainly clarifies the issue. Thanks for your reply though! The Raincloud Kid (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

With reciprocal respect, I don't see how it's a value judgment. There are real-world debates over lots of things. Some of them continue for millennia. This isn't about what "many of us" believe; it's about what reliable sources say. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Biological vs Social View of Man

This article is clearly written to appeal to the social constructivist definition of trans man. However Wikipedia itself does not conform to this point of view. Articles on man and woman on Wikipedia give only biological definitions. Trying to combine two different points of view on a single subject only leads to logical incoherence. As was discussed in the previous section, this line of thinking is not tenable and causes great confusion for anyone trying to use the words man, male and trans man.

Per Wikipedia definitions: A man is a male human. A male organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm. A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth.

However, a trans man is not capable of producing sperm.

The responsive given by Grayfell does not refute the arguments put forth, but rather dismisses them outright. "Your definition of man is unscientific and extremely simplistic. This talk page isn't the place to share your flawed definition, and repeating it multiple times doesn't make it any less flawed." Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

To refute Grayfell's position, good definitions are as simplistic as they can to be, and no simpler. Secondly, basing a definition on the physiological and anatomy (in general biological) nature of an entity is decidedly scientific. Grayfell has not offered any alternatives to the position proposed by the previous author. In addition, he gives no reason that the author's potential definition (because it was never actually proposed) is flawed. In fact, not only was the definition not repeated several times, but indeed the "flawed" definition was not even uttered once.

I here offer a possible new definition: A trans man is a woman who wants to be identified by others as a man.

This definition includes the fact that trans men are biologically female. This includes the fact that trans man do not produce sperm, as women do not produce sperm. This definition further includes the desire of transgender people to be identified as the opposite sex that they were assigned at birth, thus the need for others to use pronouns that conform with the transgender person's identity.

Whether someone is a man or a woman should not rely on perception of the general public. Just because someone thinks that you are a man, this does not actually make you a man. If it in fact does, then kind of social relativism should be included in Wikipedia's entry on man and woman. In addition to changing the definition of man, if the general public thinks that an individual is a man when that individual instead identifies as a woman, then that individual should be classified as a man. Even if the definitions of trans man and trans woman are socially constructed, this does not imply that other definitions, such as man and woman, are also socially constructed. The biological differences between men and women are independent of social constructs.

I openly welcome any refutations of this position and potential reasons that it may be flawed.

This post is not intended to be inflammatory, pseudoscientific nor hate speech of any kind.

Userwoman (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell is right, Wikipedia is not a place for us to share our personal arguments about the subject article, please review WP:NOR. Rab V (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Userwoman, you're offering variations on an argument that has been made repeatedly in the past at this and related articles, and has gained no traction. Also, your style of writing is very much like that of others who have commented in the past. Unless you have something credible and new and are prepared to cite reliable sources to support it, please give it a rest. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Rivertorch (talk)

Rivertorch thank you for taking the time to reply. Can you please let me know what citations were used to support the current definition? I do not see any specific citations in the discussion to adopt the current definition.

Userwoman (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I see several relevant references in Terminology section, among them one from the APA. Did you miss that? (Incidentally, your ping didn't work, for whatever arcane reason, but this page is on my watchlist so there's no need to ping me unless days go by and I don't reply.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have looked at the reference from the APA and this is what I see. "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." I do not see anywhere on the page where it says that transgender men are men or women. In addition, I did take a look at the definition given by another source (dictionary.com) and it differs from the current definition as well. "Transmasculine: noting or relating to a person who was born female but whose gender identity is more male than female." Please let me know from which source the current definition was adopted. The current language seems to vary significantly from all of the cited sources. Userwoman (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You realize you are pulling a dictionary definition of 'transmasculine', not 'trans man', right? That dictionary source is cited in article to note explicitly how that term is different from trans man. Rab V (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's turn this around. You want the article to describe a trans man as a woman but cited no sources in your recent edits. What source can you offer to support your proposed definition? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The term transmasculine includes trans man as a subset. "Transmasculine is a general, broader term..." Every trans man is, by definition, transmasculine. I don't think that it is appropriate to deflect the issue or "turn this around" on me. If the current definition has no source, then it must have been original research, which is not permitted. Can you provide a citation for the current definition? Userwoman (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is some sealioning nonsense. Here's some sources for you:

• GLAAD (see also [1])
• Harvard
• Cornell
• MIT
• UN Omaha
• Loyola
• Bellevue College
• Michigan State University
• CDC
• APA (see also [2] [3] [4])
• NIH
• BBC

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to list several websites, some of which are included in the references section. I’ve taken the time to read through each one and have yet to see anything written in them that supports the current definition. Because you did not, I will include the definition of trans man offered by each source, if any.

GLAAD: Trans man is never mentioned.

Harvard: Trans man is never mentioned.

Cornell: Page not found.

MIT: Trans man is never mentioned.

CDC: Transgender men describes people who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men.

APA: People who were assigned female, but identify and live as male and alter or wish to alter their bodies through medical intervention to more closely resemble their gender identity are known as transsexual men or transmen.

NIH: Trans man is never mentioned.

BBC: People assigned female at birth but living as a man may describe themselves as a transgender man...

None of these definitions define a trans man as being a man. The three that actually have an explicit definition of trans man define a trans man as being a person who is assigned female at birth, presumably because that person is indeed female and not due to some clerical error. As per Wikipedia's own definition, "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)." All canonical trans men produce ova before birth, while trans women never do. All four of these definitions support the view that trans man is a subset of woman. Userwoman (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

For many, the definition of transgender is given, and then sybtypes are mentioned.

• The adjective transgender refers to persons whose gender identity or gender expression differs from the sex to which they were assigned at birth ([www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-identity-report.pdf])
• This is an umbrella term for people whose gender is different from their "assigned" sex at birth - that written on their birth certificate. Gender can refer to one's own, internal sense of being a man or woman, or another type that doesn't fit either category. ([5])
• Transgender is a term for people whose gender identity or expression is different from their sex assigned at birth. Gender identity refers to a person’s internal understanding of their own gender. Gender expression describes a person’s outward presentation of their gender (for example, how they dress). Transgender women describes people who were assigned the male sex at birth but identify as women. Transgender men describes people who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men. ([6]; bold added)
• 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.
• People who were assigned female but identify and live as male and alter or wish to alter their bodies through medical intervention to more closely resemble their gender identity are known as transsexual men or transmen (also known as female-to-male or FTM). ([7])
• FTM Individuals: Female-to-male transsexual people, transsexual men, transmen, or transguys—individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male. Some transmen reject being seen as “FTM,” arguing that they have always been male and are only making this identity visible to other people (instead, they may call themselves “MTM”). (terms.pdf Cornell link fixed)
• Those persons who identify as transgender (the “T” in many queer community acronyms) are those who identify with a gender that differs from their assigned sex (Figure 1). This juxtaposes cisgender, or those who identify with their assigned gender ([8])
• Trans* is an umbrella term which describes people whose gender identities and expressions are not fully defined by the gender they were assigned at birth. ([9])
• Transgender is a term used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. ([10])
• Trans Man – A man who was assigned female at birth. Signifies that he is a man while still affirming his transgender history. ([[11])

You appear to be piecing together definitions from various wikipedia articles to make your own conclusion that "trans man is a subset of woman". Please see WP:SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me with these definitions. I appreciate your efforts to point out specific policies relevant to this discussion and that you are continuing to be open and welcoming to newcomers such as myself. My intentions are truly in good faith. Most of the definitions that you have posted concern the term transgender, which already has a Wikipedia page separate from that of trans man. The last definition (Michigan State University) cites Wikipedia as a source, so it is possible that the Michigan State University website adopted the definition of trans man from Wikipedia instead of the other way around. I have yet to see one source that defines trans man as a man. However, I see several sources that define trans man as a person who was born female, i.e., a woman. Userwoman (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Many of those same sources (e.g., [12]) note that biological sex is not the same as gender, thus "born female" != "woman". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You bring up a valuable point and I'm glad that you did. There is indeed a difference between biological sex and a socially constructed gender role. However, defining trans man in this way also brings about great confusion. Because man and woman are gender roles, someone may start or stop participating in them at any time. So does this mean that a female is only considered to be a trans man if that person is actively participating in a gender role traditionally reserved for men? What if this person has not yet transitioned? Can that female not be a trans man until after the transition and acquisition of traditionally male behaviors? In addition, if a ciswoman decides to take on a traditionally male gender role, is that woman now a trans man? According to this view, any female who takes on a male gender role would be defined as a man (and a furthermore a trans man). This does not seem correct. Userwoman (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"Because man and woman are gender roles... is incorrect. Sex role theory as an explanation of gender as a phenomenon is quite dead, precisely for the reasons you point out. As many of the links I provided above explain, gender is generally thought to be composed of both gender identity and gender expression (c.f. West and Zimmerman's doing gender and Raewyn Connell's hegemonic masculinity). However, if you wish to discuss this more or learn more about current social science understandings of gender, I recommend asking at the reference desk. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely, which is why the use of the term man should be made more explicit. Does this word, as used in this definition, refer to sex, gender identity or gender role? Leaving it unqualified leaves room for incorrect interpretation. Userwoman (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What "incorrect interpretation"? Who defines what is correct? Not you and not I. But we're running the risk of seeing this morph into a discussion of the topic and not the article itself. The article appears to be satisfactorily sourced. You may not agree that the sources support the content as written, but it is clear that there is not consensus to make the changes you propose. Unless you have a concrete proposal for specific changes supported by reliable sources, I suggest that we wind this discussion down. EvergreenFir's suggestion that you visit the reference desk is a good one. Extended discussion of topics is often permissible there. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave my last comment here. By interpretation, I do mean the reader's interpretation of the word man in the definition given by this Wikipedia article. The definition is derived from sources that use the term "man" in a very specific sense. The article may be sourced well, but if it is not clear what the sources mean by each word, readers may take the word man to mean something that it doesn't. Based on the articles sourced, readers should not get the impression that man means male sex, nor that man means male gender role, but only that man (in this context) refers to a masculine identity. If anyone thinks that this kind of explicit clarification of a potentially confusing topic such as gender is helpful, then I encourage you to make changes to the definition. Otherwise, keep it how it is. Userwoman (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have researched the topic more thoroughly and am now even more convinced that the current definition of trans man presented on Wikipedia is misleading. Most people tend to use the word 'man' as being a male human. Few people take the word 'man' to refer to a male social role. In addition to the common usage of the term, none of the definitions supplied above ever refer to a trans man as a man. For these two reasons, the definition of trans man should be updated.

Definition from Google, Man: an adult human male

Definition from Merriam-Webster, Man: an individual human; especially an adult male human

Definition from Dictionary.com, Man: an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman

Userwoman (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"I have researched the topic more thoroughly"... so you have other sources than dictionaries and "Google", right? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(e.c.) Google doesn't define words; it uses someone else's definition. Similarly, Dictionary.com is also not a dictionary but an aggregator and therefore also is not a source in itself. But we're not a dictionary, in any case; we're an encyclopedia. Our preferred sources are secondary, not tertiary. You can research the topic endlessly, but you'll have to achieve consensus to make your preferred changes. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, you seem to be misinterpreting that principle. "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." This principle states that Wikipedia is more than just a repository of good definitions. It does not imply that Wikipedia cannot reference dictionaries. If it did, then why you do have dictionary.com listed as reference #11 on this page?

Rivertorch, I should achieve consensus among who? Is it just the two or three of you who have commented in the past?

Userwoman (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Since a comment of mine was (apparently) quoted above, let me restate that this new proposed definition is both pseudoscientific and simplistic. Not merely simple, but simplistic. Reliable secondary sources do not treat this term as you are presenting it. I'm sure most of us search within documents to support our cases, but we must be willing to dig deeper than that when necessary. Wikipedia summarizes whole sources, not merely those narrow slices easily found by hitting ctrl+f. The consensus here is that sources do not support your proposal. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Userwoman, consensus is a basic policy governing Wikipedia, and I'm not going to explain it to you here. What you're doing (aside from being tendentious) is basically cherry-picking sources to fit what you understand the definition to be. Unfortunately, your understanding of the concepts of "man" and "woman"—and we are dealing in concepts here, not just words—seem rather simplistic. More specifically, they reflect a received wisdom specific to a certain time and place. The concepts are actually cultural constructs and are not nearly as cut and dried as you suggest. If you were to explore some scholarly writings instead of Google definitions, you might be surprised at what you'd learn. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, I'm glad that you could rejoin the conversation. How exactly is the proposed definition pseudoscientific or simplistic? You are trying to label it as such without providing any evidence that it indeed is. Which tenet of science does the proposed definition not comport with? Unfortunately, I do see the current definition as somewhat pseudoscientific. It does not follow the requirement that scientific facts must be falsifiable. How could you falsify the claim that a person identifies as male? They could simply lie about it and therefore it is not falsifiable. As an analogy, just because I might think that I am a princess, does not mean that I am actually a princess. Science deals with truths about the world, not opinion.

Rivertorch, I do believe that you have an obligation to explain Wikipedia's policies to newcomers. I hope that you change your mind on this. I have provided very few examples of definitions and have mostly relied on those that you provided for me. If you do not remember from above, none of your sources include the statement that a trans man is a man. Yes I agree that definitions may change over time, but the greater acceptance of transgender individuals does not mean that previously established definitions of man and woman also need to change. You are not only imposing your biases about trans men, but also about men in general. In addition, if Wikipedia reflects the concepts of the general public, then it cannot rely on the esoteric writings of a few scholars. My reasoning for posting rather public sources is that they more accurately reflect the gestalt of the general public and the widely held concept of trans man. Perhaps you should read the entry in Wiktionary, trans man, it doesn't quite agree with your definition.

Userwoman (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a separate project, and what they do there has zero bearing on what we do here. For the most part, Wikipedia does not "reflect the concepts of the general public"; its content is biased in favor of scholarly opinion. As far as "previously established definitions" go, it really depends on what you mean by "previously". As I alluded to above, the the concepts of "man" and "woman" have not always been the way you think of them today.

You're not correct that I have an obligation to explain Wikipedia's policies to newcomers. We're all volunteers here, and how we choose to spend our time is entirely up to each of us. If you meant some sort of ethical obligation, I won't argue with that, and to that end I'll refer you to the first thread on your own talk page, which contains various links to pages that are intended to advise newcomers. If you click on the word "welcome" in the first sentence, you'll find yourself on a rather comprehensive page that includes links to policies dealing with consensus and sock puppetry, among other things. If you don't understand what you read there, feel free to ask me or make a query at the teahouse or the help desk. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Reducing this to trans men's individual desires (how they "want" to be identified) and then immediately discounting that desire is arbitrary, and embraces an unscientific and overly simple assumption for what "man" means. Why is their self-identification being refuted? Why are the people who agree with them being ignored? Why are some other people's identifications being prioritized? If they describe themselves a certain way, why are we directly contradicting them? Picking one perspective and ignoring the rest is is non-neutral, and just plain bad scholarship.

This proposed definition is unbalanced towards a specific prior assumption. Many trans men want to be identified as men in general, or as trans men specifically, but setting it up like this implies that there is something significant in wanting to be identified by others the same as they identify themselves. This is unremarkable, and also completely lacks in any sort of context. Using this as a base definition is introducing editorializing, which is unacceptable.

The emphasis on sperm is also pseudoscience. Neither science, nor common usage, defines "man" solely as a person with the ability to produce sperm. Many men were born with a penis and testicles and XY chromosomes but are incapable of producing sperm for various reasons. These people can still be men. These are real people with real bodies, so it's important not to trivialize them or use them as pawns in a debate. That said, if you want to discuss falsification, this is the most obvious counter-example among many. This fixation on a small aspect of the underlying biology uses scientific concepts towards an unscientific end. Because it removes important and defining complexity, it is also simplistic.

As for the idea that gender is a not a social construct, a lot has already been said, but responding to your original comment that the "general public" get to decide if someone is a woman or not: this is simply shifting the burden from one group to another. This only supports that gender is a social construct, and undermines your position that "science" supports a single narrow definition.

You also seem to be confused about what falsifiability means in science. The ability to lie about something is irrelevant, because any finding can be wrong. A false statement is bad data, but not necessarily a bad hypothesis. Falsifiable doesn't mean it can be proven to your personal satisfaction. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that we are confusing many subjects and this requires some rigorous clarification. It is true that people construct definitions and it is true that definitions may change over time. However, it is generally not true that the entities that those definitions refer to change over time. Now we come to a very important distinction, between facts and opinions. Our understanding of facts may change over time, but the truth about the world that those facts correspond to does not change over time. Opinions about the world can change at any instant that a person wills it to. Now is gender identity a fact or an opinion? Well if it can change over time, and if that change is caused by the cognitive processes of a person, gender identity is an opinion rather than a fact. This in no way diminishes the complexity of establishing a gender identity. Choosing which religion aligns most closely with one's own values is a similar process in which one's opinions are explored, established and can change over time. Because of this, there is no fact about which religion is the most true and as a result, no religion is granted the status of objective scientific truth. The definition of trans man is not falsifiable because it is not a fact. Whether someone is a man or a woman can be falsified because those terms make truth claims about the world. Merely having strong opinions does not establish truth.

The emphasis on sperm is certainly not pseudoscience, please see man and male. In addition, you are confusing types and examples. Science proceeds by identifying types and in doing so it creates a set of criteria. If an entity meets all of the criteria, it is considered canonical, prototypical, archetypical. If it meets almost all of the criteria (and is not something else), then it is considered non-canonical. An infertile male is considered non-canonical because he has every feature of a male except for one and has even fewer features in common with females. The reason that science does this is to prevent an explosion of new types. Science would not be able to function if it had to come up with a new term for every variation of a man with different heights, weights, location, ages, social status, hairiness, eye color, languages spoken, muscle mass and so on to delineate each trivial difference between them into a new type.

You keep trying to state that many academics view trans men as men, but then why is this not reflected in any of the sources? The one source that said this cited Wikipedia itself as a source. Again, I think that the authors of this page are introducing their biases into this subject when this kind of editorializing is not warranted. Although you may believe that you are leading the way towards bringing equality to our society, but your lack of rigor is leaving behind established objective truths with much greater precedent. The definition of man was established before the definition of trans man and has changed little since it's inception. The definition of new terms (trans man) must be couched within the more established terms (man), not the other way around.

Userwoman (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Science would not be able to function if it had to come up with a new term for every variation of a man with different heights, weights, location, ages, social status, hairiness, eye color, languages spoken, muscle mass and so on to delineate each trivial difference between them into a new type. "... You mean we don't describe men as little people, obese, geriatric, blue collar, bald, blue eyed, Japanese, mesomorphic, etc.? We even has social terms as nouns for men who are various configurations... hunk, bear, dad-bod, twink, sissy, meathead, or jock come to mine. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I didn't state that science doesn't come up with new terms. My point was that just because something doesn't exactly fit into a category, doesn't mean that it needs an entirely new term. We don't call infertile men, infertiles, nor do we call men with blue eyes blueies. This point is the least relevant to the discussion. Userwoman (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because something doesn't exactly fit into a category, it doesn't need an entirely new term. Okay, so infertile men can be called "infertile men". Blue-eyed men are "blue-eyed men". Trans men are "trans men". The category of "men" does not exclusively have the single, narrow definition you have applied to it, which you have basically just admitted. This category is broader than that in general use, in scientific use, and in colloquial use. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my points, Grayfell. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing things. I never said that a word cannot have multiple definitions. My statement is that your interpretation of the word man is not supported by any of the sources that you have cited. You respond to this by saying that you are synthesizing several sources to come up with something that none of them say individually, which is itself a dubious process. Furthermore, your interpretation takes on a very biased view of the word man that is mutually exclusive to the definition that science uses and the definition that most people (excluding certain communities who are in the minority opinion) agree with. Again, none of the cited sources state that trans men are men. At best, they are people who identify or want to be identified as men (which is the position that many of the sources take). However, to say that they are men is factually inaccurate, even if your feelings say otherwise. Userwoman (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources have already been explained to you, in detail, with direct quotes. None of those sources say that "a trans man is a woman..." This is synth on your part, which has also already been explained to you. Attributing this to other people's feelings is a tissue-thin projection, at best. Stick to reliable sources, not memes. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you say that defining trans men as women is a synthesis on my part, then how is defining trans men as men not a synthesis on your part? We both agree that neither of these positions are taken verbatim from any of the sources. Of course, I would say that a person who is assigned male at birth is a man (male human) and you would say that anyone who identifies as a man is a man, which mirrors the title of my post. If there is any disagreement about the definition of this word, then the Wikipedia page should reflect that. We must present both sides of the issue in order to be neutral. Userwoman (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The idea that trans men are men is a minority opinion, in the USA and globally. And again, none of the academic sources that you have cited claim that trans men are men, this is a WP:SYNTHESIS on your part. Here are some potential definitions that are actually supported by the sources.

CDC: People who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men

APA: People who were assigned female but identify and live as male

Cornell: Individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male

Please, pick your favorite. Userwoman (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Short version: There is no consensus that the change was not justified; therefore the conclusion is that yes, the change was justified.

Longer version:

Discussions around elements of personal identity can be very contentious and spirited but for the most part this was a civil discussion, so kudos to all involved for that. My role as closer is to assess whether there is a clear consensus. Wikipedia convention is that if there is no consensus, the status quo prevails. In this case, since the change in question has already been made, the status quo is to keep the change in place.

Reading through the arguments there are good points made on both sides, but in both weight of argument and sheer numbers there is a mild consensus that yes, the change was justified. I would not say that is a clear consensus, but there is certainly no clear consensus that the change was not justified so either way the result is the same - the definition as it appears now, after the change was made, should stay. WaggersTALK 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Disagreement over how to define trans man. One side states that any person who is born male is a man (male human) and the other side states that any person who identifies as a man is a man (masculine identity). Both sides argue that their position is supported by alternate interpretations of the same sources.

• CDC "People who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men"
• APA "People who were assigned female but identify and live as male"
• Cornell "Individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male"

This major edit was made on the trans woman page without any preceding discussion and was later adopted by the trans man page. 08:43, 19 October 2016‎ Picture of a Sunny Day (inactive) (First sentence was unnecessarily verbose. Trans women are women according to MOS: IDENTITY). Previous definition: A trans woman is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman. Current definition: A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

Was this change justified? If not, what is the best definition of trans man and trans woman? Userwoman (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Two penies of thought from a neutral editor. Actually both arguments can be supported with independant references. I have found numerous usages of the understanding that A trans man (sometimes trans-man or transman) is a man who was assigned female at birth being used by people who are defining themselves as Trans Man or Transgender man. However, I also found third party references that ask a person to not be very particular about a specific term when choosing between transgender and / or trans man when indentifying themselves as transgender. The usage of the term in neutral third party references does matter whe deciding about its explanation on Wikipedia. However, I think if we can agree to use the term Trans Man as an inclusive, and not as an exlusive term, we might be able to agree a more globally acceptable definition. --Wikishagnik (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the terms of this RfC are not at all clear (as far as I can tell), but there are clearly reliable sources defining "Trans Man" as a gender identity for individuals who are men but were assigned female gender at birth. Per these sources and MOS:GENDERID, I don't know that the RfC is intended to address. It seems to be a non-issue. In particular, insertion of definitions based on so-called "biological sex" as has been repeatedly proposed by editors of this article previously, seems both off-topic and contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the debate trick in which one pretends to not understand the argument of the other side. Your response shows that you fully understand the issue as posed. As Wikishagnik states above, references can be produced to support either definition. And as you state, many editors have found fault with the current definition and think that it should be changed. Thus a discussion is required to resolve the issue (especially because one never took place), rather than deciding to dismiss the premise outright. Userwoman (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You have not provided a valid explanation or rationale for the RfC, because (1) any local consensus over this working would be immediately superceded by MOS:GENDERID and (2) no reliable sources exist that define Trans Men as women. Chromosome-supremacist POV-pushing is no replacement for either policy or sources. But Happy Sealioning! Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial Chromosome-supremacist? Is this word supposed to be hurtful to me? Userwoman (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope; we all equally have chromosomes. It would have been more accurate for me to say "chromosome reductionist" but I was probably trying to be cool. :P. Newimpartial (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I find the parentheticals—"male human" and "masculine identity"—potentially confusing. I also believe that the statement "the other side states that any person who identifies as a man is a man" may be a mischaracterization of the argument; I don't recall that claim being made. And I think it's unfortunate to talk about "one side" versus "the other side" because it frames the dispute in polarized terms. Nevertheless, to answer the RfC's question, yes, the change was justified; it is clearer than the previous wording, which was vague and could have left the casual reader with a rather nebulous idea understanding of the article's topic. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Potentially confusing? So are these phrases actually understandable? In my opinion, the current definition is even more confusing than the last definition. Therefore, it was not justified. I'm happy to find a synthesis to your antithesis. Userwoman (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? You're entitled to your opinion, but prolonging a content dispute indefinitely in an ongoing bid to make consensus coalesce around your opinion is likely futile and certainly tiresome. After two months of failing to gain consensus, you started an RfC, which was your prerogative. The best thing to do now is to just let those who choose to comment do so, and stop responding to them. We all know your opinion by now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, the change was justified. This subject has been talked to death, that's why we have MOS:IDENTITY in the first place. Also, I can't tell immediately what this RfC is meant to do besides go around in circles over minor changes in sentence structure; at worst it's a troll RfC. (Edit - I've struck through the last part of my sentence in favor of linking to the essay WP:SEALIONING. It's not AGF of me to accuse Userwoman of being a troll, as they're being very civil despite the POV pushing). Nanophosis (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As noted by several editors above, this RFV is written in a somewhat inaccurate and POV way, and this horse has been beaten (often by this very Userwoman) ad nauseam, for more than a year, both here and on the talk page of the article the RFC actually refers to the wording of. Yes, the current more concise wording is in line with reliable sources; at this point, despite the framing of this RFC, a positive consensus would need to be found if OP wanted to change the wording from "man"/"woman" to "person". -sche (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Revert or change as the reliable sources quoted clearly state that a trans man is someone who identifies as a man. This is a factual statement. However, whether or not such a person is actually a "man" (a vaguely defined term) is hotly debated in many reliable sources, some of which decry the existence of gender at all to such an extent that they believe nobody is a man. Others disagree with the entire concept of someone being transgender. The previous statement encompasses all sides of this debate and can be universally agreed on by all sources. Changing the sentence structure to factually state that trans men "are men" wades into subjective definitions of what a "man" is and what it is to "be" one. MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply here as the point of that section is to prevent clumsy pronoun constructions/complex issues with describing a subject's gender identity. As applied in Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner, there is no actual referral to either of these people with the unqualified term "woman" and specifically refers to their gender identity as a woman. I find it offensively uncivil that User:Nanophosis and User:Newimpartial found it OK to describe User:Userwoman as a "POV-pusher" as that contributes absolutely nothing to this discussion other than your opinion of the persons involved.

In my opinion, the easiest way to resolve this dispute would be to change the definition to something like "A trans man is a person who was born female who has chosen to identify as a man." This is much clearer to potential readers who may not be familiar with terms like "assigned" and also clarifies in what way this person has become a trans man. It also avoids passing judgement on whether or not said person is actually a "man" or not, leading the reader to make their own inferences. It is also in line with CDC, APA, and other reliable non-partisan sources such as the BBC. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Aside from your (entirely unsourced) substantive opinion, Chess, what term would you use for an editor who repeatedly edits and article to make a particular change that overturns consensus? I believe the conventional term is, in fact, POV pushing. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial from where I stand, you are pushing a point of view alternative to mine. Chess seems to have provided the BBC as a source, unless you missed that. Userwoman (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference, Userwoman, is that I am neither repeatedly editing nor repeatedly raising the issue in Talk, in the face of repeated rebuffs, in order to get what I want. WP is not based on total relativism, as you Lions seem to believe, and you are the one constantly defying consensus on this issue.

Also, Chess has provided a source that contradicts their own avowed opinion, since the end of the BBC "transwoman" definition says that "woman" may simply be used instead (as the WP article now does). So thanks for pointing me to that source! ;) Newimpartial (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't at all contradict my opinion. I'm not taking a position on the usage on whether or not to use "trans man" or "man" when referring to somebody specifically. In this case, we are not referring to a specific person, we are defining the term "trans men." This requires additional contextualizing and clarification of the term. "Trans men are men" is a nice slogan but does nothing to define the term for those who don't already know it. I don't see why we can't compromise on a definition that actually explains more about what a "trans man" is (someone who identifies as a man) while allowing us to sidestep this touchy argument over whether to refer to a "trans man" as a "man" or a "person." It's OK to compromise, you know? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial the definition given by the BBC is in line with the others that I have presented. "People assigned female at birth but living as a man may describe themselves as a "transgender man"." I agree that some people may wish to be referred to by the more general term (man), but they would not describe themselves as cis men. I wish that you would take this discussion more seriously. Userwoman (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks, SPA. And nobody has suggested that Trans Men would describe themselves as, or are "cis men" but they do describe themselves as, and are, "men", as the BBC states in the source provided and also per WP:MOS:GENDERID. Could we please put this discussion to bed? 19:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would think, User:Newimpartial, that if you have a problem with an editor's behavior and think that said behavior might be disruptive to the project, then perhaps you should take those concerns up in the proper forums such as the editor's talk page or dispute resolution. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's fine Asking if the change was "justified" is comically loaded, which taints the RFC. The change was an improvement, and that's what matters. I've reformatted this discussion for readability, I hope no one minds. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We're debating whether or not it's an improvement, that being the point of the RfC. Referring to someone else's RfC as "comically loaded" isn't very helpful when you yourself are engaging in circular reasoning. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: (edit conflict) Not !voting (yet), because the terms of the Rfc are unclear. Given my understanding of the Rfc question from a synthesis of various parts of it above, as follows:

  Should the definition of trans man echo the change in the definition of trans woman of 08:31 19 October 2016 in which it was changed from A trans woman... is a transgender person who... to A trans woman... is a woman who... ?

then I would vote Yes, it should be, "a trans man is a man who...". If the wording of the Rfc is clarified, I will vote. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'd go with a third option of specifying that "a trans man/woman is someone who identifies as a man/woman while not being born biologically male/female." It explains how people become trans women/men, is neutral/ambiguous on the vague definition of a "man" or "woman" and should be the right way to satisfy everyone in this debate, as that is the leading definition as used by most reliable sources. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chess: Thank you for your comment. My feeling is that the Rfc as constituted is fatally flawed, and that therefore everybody's effort here is more or less wasted words. I do appreciate your comment however, and I will certainly reply to you in any normal Talk page discussion, or in a properly constituted Rfc question. At this point, I'm cutting my losses by not wasting any more words, and I urge everyone else to do the same, and call for everyone here to agree to end this Rfc and to start another one if desired, properly formatted this time so the question is clear and we know what we are discussing and what the options are. Mathglot (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, although, I do slightly disagree with your framing of this RfC as a "loss" rather than progress, I appreciate that you are being reasonable. I think that this RfC should remain open, but I would be open to adopting language that would express the same idea, but in more neutral terms. Please let me know what you come up with. Userwoman (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Userwoman, I would be happy to help with wording in the event of a follow-up Rfc. Unfortunately, per WP:REDACT, since other people have already responded to the initial wording of the Rfc, it's too late now to modify the initial statement of the question, as it would very possibly invalidate the sense of all the follow-up comments that were made to an earlier version of it. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot please let me know when you have come up with the wording for a follow ,utheno twill I can close this one. Userwoman (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Userwoman, you're kind to put your trust in me, and I'm happy to help (and I'm sure others are, too), but since this Rfc was originally your idea, I don't want to put words in your mouth or mindread you. I'd just like to help you come up with wording that expresses the question you really want to resolve, in a way that is rigorous, meets the Rfc guidelines, and will encourage an effective and fruitful discussion on a limited, but very clear point so the discussion remains on track. Think about what it is you want to resolve, and then see if you can phrase that in a way that comes down to a yes-or-no question, or at worst, a question with a limited number of alternatives (not more than 3 or 4 options, otherwise it starts to be too many and the discussion goes off in ten different directions and nothing ever gets resolved). Was my comment above anything close to what you want to ask? If you can just talk about what your question is, I'm sure we can come up with the wording. Have a look through Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment first, it gives a lot of good tips on how to go about writing a good Rfc question. (P.S. You don't have to come up with a new question, before closing this Rfc; you can just say "I withdraw the Rfc", and you're done. Or you can wait; your choice.) Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the currently used definition. Though the opening comment makes it seem as though major sources such as the APA and CDC do not see trans men as men, this is not true if you read more from both organizations. Both organizations have position statements that amount to respecting a trans person's gender identity. And the current RFC opening comment needs to be more clear and less biased as others have stated. Wikipedia rules are clear on RFC opening comments needing to be neutral, this one seems to make arguments for one side. Rab V (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The definition as widely accepted is that "trans men are those who identify as men despite not being born biologically male." This is the clearest, most neutral, and easiest way to describe trans men. Consider the alternate: "trans men are men who were not born male." What does it mean to be a man? Does someone need gender affirming surgery to qualify? Is HRT necessary? What if someone has involuntarily been turned into a man (reversed David Reimer) but does not identify as such? Some people don't necessarily consider gender identity as pertinent to someone's gender and going back to a previous (or better) wording actually clarifies that a trans man identifies as a man, which is why they are trans men. Not because of any other reason. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Chess I think that your definition is better than any of the ones that I have proposed, trans men are people who identify as men despite not being born biologically male. A man then (in contrast to a trans man) is a person who was born biologically male and identifies as a man. Userwoman (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note, everyone, that something like this OR definition of "man" is what "Userwoman" is trying to insert into the Trans Man article. Even if that definition did belong somewhere in WP (and I can think of some places), it is irrelevant to the this article: maybe the OP could take their next RfC somewhere else? Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: It's not "WP:OR" when the CDC itself uses the definition of "Transgender men describes people who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men." And I'm not sure what you're implying by putting User:Userwoman in scare quotes. Care to elaborate? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC).

To AGF, and in case you missed it, the OR definition was offered immediately above, "A man then (in contrast to a trans man) is a person who was born biologically male and identifies as a man". This does not under any circumstances belong in the Trans Man article (it is in fact the sourced definition of "Cis male"), yet here we are.

And the scare quotes were intended to flag what I increasingly suspect is an SPA, but perhaps I was being too subtle. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: OP has been soliciting votes from users (predominantly those who've previously expressed a certain viewpoint), which may constitute canvassing (vote-stacking): [13], (hi fellow Wiktionarian!), [14], [15]. -sche (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Equinox since you participated in the dispute resolution notice as well as this request for comments, don't you think that others would as well? I hope that you are not discouraging people from sharing a valid point of view that happens to be different than your own. I certainly didn't tell them what to say. Userwoman (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Userwoman, you misunderstand, I believe, what -sche is trying to tell you. I've explained this at your Talk page, here. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Change to something else. What I don't know yet, but the current introduction is as politcally loaded as the reverted one. The introduction needs to diferentiate between gender as a social construct and a biological one. It is an issue throughout transgender and related articles on wikipedia and one that probably needs to be addressed in a better way and with a more thoughful RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Revert or change. I very much agree with Chess above on everything from what I can tell. I'd like to add that if Wikipedia defined transwomen as women and transmen as men it would be contradicting itself in the articles woman and man (and/or female and male). MOS:GENDERID doesn't look like it would apply here, as it refers to biographies. MOS:IDENTITY says that a group should be referred to the way it refers to itself if it's unclear whether a different term isn't used more commonly in reliable sources, but reliable sources support (I presume) the definitions in the woman and man articles for the corresponding terms. Sources I've referred to in the sex assignment page show that sex assignment is rarely erroneous, meaning that most people assigned female are indeed female and vice versa for male. This could even be seen as grounds to state that transwomen are generally men in the literal sense and vice versa, though I'm not crazy enough to think that such wording would be accepted on Wikipedia, so I would kindly request a middleground / mutual compromise. And regarding the allegation of vote fishing... I've observed long and painfully that trans/gender related articles on Wikipedia are under an "organic" domination of people who ideologically agree with the transgender movement. What I mean with that is that they are those who are most interested in these articles and naturally end up keeping watch over them, whereas people with contradicting views generally get bored and go away after a few attempts at bringing neutrality into said articles. Feminist-minded people are the only group which seem to have sufficient interest in changing this situation despite the difficulty, which is why a few of them are now "piling" in on such articles and possibly asking each other for help. (Even then there don't seem to be too many of them.) I would suggest that this is a healthy development that brings more neutrality into the related topics. If Userwoman had not notified me on my talk page about this RfC a few days ago, I wouldn't be here now not because I'm not interested in this topic (I absolutely am), but because it's so exhausting to do this that I tend to avoid it. Taylan (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per others above. Have also been watching this talk page for a while and think this is just a case of a small minority of people requesting the same changes again and again, for what seems like quite a while now. --Equivamp - talk 03:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that this RfC has gone on for awhile, I do want to address some points that have been brought up.

1. Yes this is my first Wikipedia edit. I saw something on Wikipedia that did not follow from the sources and so I edited it.

2. The problem that I am bringing up has been brought up by several other editors, which suggests that a legitimate problem exists.

3. Although many people have pushed a certain point of view, no sources have been presented that clearly state that a trans man is a man.

4. Many editors have accused me of sealioning, but unfortunately, this does not address the issue and only prolongs the time to reach a conclusion.

5. A legitimate discussion of the best definition of trans man needs to take place or this issue will only be brought up again by another editor in the future.

Userwoman (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? Your first edit, which I linked to above, is entirely POV devoid of sources, and while you have changed your wording proposals slightly since then you seem not to have changed your opinion. There are simply no recent, reliable sources that define Trans Men as women, which appears to be the underlying POV you are pushing. There are on the other hand many, many reliable sources, including the BBC piece Chess linked to above, that refer to Trans Men as men (which also happens to be the position taken in MOS:GENDERID after a well-formed and widely-participared RfC).

If you feel that Wikipedia does not address biological sex versus cultural gender with sufficient precision, there are certainly places to make that point, but trying to turn the Lede of this article into a COATRACK for that elaboration is contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial you are obviously bending the wording in MOS:GENDERID to fit your own point of view. GENDERID was created to deal with pronouns in biographies as stated by others above. It did not address how transgender should be defined. Userwoman (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:SPA. Creation of accounts in order to edit articles according to a preconceived point of you is, and remains, contrary to WP policy. This is exactly what you appear to be doing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification's sake, SPAs are welcome as long as they aren't socks, their edits conform to policy, and they don't lead discussions into the land of dead horses. I think we are obliged to extend a little more AGF here, regardless of what we may think is going on. This RfC has another 18 days to run (if it isn't withdrawn or otherwise closed early). Its wording is flawed, and there have been procedural irregularities including canvassing, but prolonged arguing with its initiator isn't going to help matters. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rivertorch you have put up a great barrier to neutrality in this article. I'm sure that you understand this and are doing so because you think that you are righting past injustices against transgender people. You think that acceptance of the transgender worldview is paramount to maintaining neutrality and objectivity. You already know that you have made this tradeoff, so there is nothing more for me to say to convince you or any of the other keepers of this point of view to change your mind. Userwoman (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Userwoman: don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Comment on content, not your perceptions of other users. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Sexual Orientation of Population / Prevalence, Identity, and Relationships section

The Prevalence, Identity, and Relationships section states: "The literature commonly indicates that sexual attraction to those of their same gender (e.g., trans men liking men and trans women liking women) is considerably less common among trans men than among trans women; the vast majority of trans men are described as heterosexual", via references 2and 3. These two references state specifically "most often [trans men] identify as heterosexual" and that "most trans men are heterosexual in their orientation", but do not have data behind those claims, nor do they cite any source for those claims.

Per National Center for Transgender Equality's findings in the 2015 US Transgender Survey, the claim that the vast majority of trans men are heterosexual along with the claim that same-gender attraction is less prevalent in trans men are both false. The recent (2015) data from NCTE shows that only 23% of trans men who responded to the US Transgender Survey identified as straight or heterosexual, while 77% identified otherwise. As well, 19% of trans women identified as straight, and while that does show a greater prevalence of heterosexual identification for trans men, it's not considerable.

While the two references above do have use outside of those statements (e.g. information around trans men with prior lesbian identification and interaction with lesbian communities), they do not accurately reflect more recent findings on sexual attraction and orientation/identification, and should not be used for these claims. Similarly, the statement "the literature indicates that most trans men identify as heterosexual" does not belong in the lead for the article.

107.194.206.185 (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disregarding all of the first paragraph, and most of what is in the second paragraph, and what you added, I added all of what is currently in that section, and it is up-to-date. Your one National Center for Transgender Equality source doesn't trump what most of the literature states on the matter. See WP:Due weight. When it comes to trans men being predominantly heterosexual and usually having lesbian histories, they are significantly consistent findings. So is the fact that gay men commonly shun gay trans men when it comes to them being romantic/sexual options. But as seen by the last paragraph in that section, I also added counter material on those matters. That counter material cannot, however, trump what most of the literature states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And, yes, per WP:Lead, the prevalence material is a lead matter and we give most our weight to what most of the literature states. Not to the minority of the literature, such as random surveys or surveys by a nonprofit social equality organization such as the National Center for Transgender Equality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, National Center for Trans Equality isn't a random social equality organization, and the US Transgender Survey is not a random survey. The 2015 US Transgender Survey is a fairly exhaustive study around the US transgender population, and included 27,715 respondents -- 31% of which were trans men/FTM identified. Very little hard data exists on the transgender population, which is understandably why few sexuality or gender researchers have adequate data to back up their claims (or to correct them), outside of NCTE's recent large studies and the Williams Institute's transgender population studies.

While the due weight recommendations definitely "trump" hard proof, I also propose that any references to sexual orientation prevalence of trans men be removed. This includes references to "the vast majority of trans men are heterosexual" as well as any statistics added in my edit on sexual orientation percentages refuting that claim. Information on lesbian histories and issues with the gay male community are still relevant to the article, but sexual orientation prevalence claims are not. 107.194.206.185 (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight, I cannot grant your request. Prevalence material is relevant. I obviously wouldn't mind removing what you added, but text based on what the literature generally states about the subject should remain. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

____

References

Sexuality Terminology

When referring to trans men what does heterosexual mean? This is unclear to the layperson, please disambiguate it in the article.

Does it refer to the preference of the subject if considering their biological sex, or rather their identified gender? Pursuant to the above conversation, it seems biological sex is most logical, however clearly there is confusion in the general public. For clarity, I recommend specifying explicitly in the article introduction.

Ethanpet113 (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a clarification to the article. I'll point out that "biological sex" is a very vague term. When taking hormone replacement therapy, there are many ways in which a trans man is just as "biologically male" as a cis man. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethanpet113, I found your "vague" placement unnecessary (and others might classify it as WP:Pointy) since the article is clear that trans men identify as men. I don't see how any layperson is going to think that we mean that most trans men are sexually attracted to men because they are "biological women." Therefore, I understood why Jim1138 reverted you. I also understand why ChiveFungi clarified what heterosexual means, but I find it unnecessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Then again, maybe I am overestimating laypeople. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I admit, I misinterpreted Ethanpet113's edit when I reverted. I apologized for that on Ethanpet113's. Jim1138 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Still not neutral

While the RfC started by Userwomon has been closed, there is no consensus that the current wording of the article conforms to WP:NPOV policy. The statement "a trans man is a man" is not supported by any reliable sources as was established during the RfC's discussion, represents a recently emerged world view held by less than half of the US population (probably less on a global scale), is contradicted by English dictionaries, and is contradicted by Wikipedia's own article on the term man. (I'm just opening this section to serve as an explanation to the NPOV banner I'll add back to the article. I will not discuss the topic any further here since a larger-scale discussion is going on at the ANI.) Taylan (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:STICK. RfC above was closed as keeping the status quo. You're trying to restart that conversation. If something comes out of the NPOVN discussion, then there would be grounds to revisit this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

TaylanUB, please also note that the NPOV template is to be removed "in the absence of discussion", and you have explicitly said that you "will not discuss the topic any further here". (And note that the discussion at NPOV/N is about Trans woman and not Trans man.) -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 18:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NOTICE the discussion Taylan referred to immediately above is now winding down at [[16]]. Anyone wishing to contribute to that discussion, or anyone uninvolVed wishing to close it, is encouraged to do so soon. Any result besides "no consensus" will probably be interpreted by some as providing a rationale to change the lede of this article, as well. Newimpartial (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentance

The lead should read: "A trans man (sometimes trans-man or transman) is a person whose gender at birth was assigned as female but who now self-identifies as male.". Is there anything in the rfc to forbid this? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Trans men are men. Also you accused a trans man of fraud here: [17] What the actual fuck? --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Where in the proposed sentence does it say that a trans man is not a man? Why am I even defending something that I have not said? Stick to the proposal please. I think that it it best to centralise the Cashier discussion on that talk page. And please use more parliamentary language; there is no need for crudities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Variations of this have been discussed here and on Talk:Trans woman. Generally, there's been opposition to the type of text you suggest. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything in this or any other rfc to forbid this suggestion?

Nothing ever forbids a suggestion, but it is approaching stick territory. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

My proposal above was originally reverted on the grounds of some supposed rfc policy. If no such policy exists, what is to prevent it going forward? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction. In that RfC, you can see that a number of editors were for wording similar to yours. This was Option 2. But it's also the case that a number of people were opposed to Option 2. Other options were also given. The closer stated, "On the whole, there is consensus that both option 1 and option 2 are superior to other presented options. There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds. This does not preclude any subsequent discussions about the article content, but participants should in all cases refrain from edit-warring over the content of the lead or the article more broadly." So the RfC closed as no consensus. The RfC is not a policy, but WP:Consensus is. As for Albert Cashier, it's made clear in the article and on the article's talk page that calling Cashier a trans man is debatable. Same goes for other similar historical figures, which was also recently discussed at WP:LGBT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to stable language

1 Blue Monkey has been edit warring to re-write the lede (against the long-term stable version), beginning here. The correct course is to discuss this (again) and not to Edit War. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the solution is not edit warring in either direction. I've restored the lead to the version before the edit warring. Per the RfC above, the first sentence has consensus. We need a new consensus before this can be changed again. As for the word "allegedly", it's a non-neutral word to watch in this case. It's completely unclear how the given source relates to the usage of the word "allegedly" in that sentence as well. As for the edit warring over this content, it needs discussion, though I notice Ivanvector reintroduced it in this edit. 1 Blue Monkey's repeated assertion that this violates TOS with no specific reasoning is completely insufficient. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION - at the time, the most recent revision was clearly unacceptable, so I located the newest revision before all this edit warring began and restored it. I missed that you had edited in the meantime, and so I apologize. Feel free to revise my edit (I suggest you don't revert in case some other admin sees you reverting in a revert war and doesn't look too closely to see what's happening). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ventvogue, here is the place to discuss your proposals for the lede. Please stop the EW that the Blue Monkey started. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not start an edit war, rather you are the one who started it and then got me unfairly blocked so you could win. I am at least glad that you were blocked too although you have apparently learned nothing from it. Ventvogue (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ventvogue, do you have two accounts, then? There is a procedure for declaring that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, two more suspected sockpuppets of 1 Blue Monkey have been blocked: Slipmost and SquantosRevenge. Someone is very determined to have their view represented in the lede of this page. Funcrunch (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, especially Funcrunch (talk) and Newimpartial (talk), 1 Blue Monkey has been cleared of the allegations of sockpuppetry by wiki admins as can be seen here. As the admins put it "user was "set up like a kipper"-- joe-jobbed". 1 Blue Monkey (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the continuation of the EW by Ventvogue and Slipmost was a joe job. Let's see whether the discussion can now be policy-compliant (and compliant with WP:BRD so as to avoid EW in the future. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)