Talk:Transgender/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Transgender vocabulary evolution regarding Drag Queens/Kings

When people discuss transgender rights, transgender protections in the law and transgender discrimination, they are not discussing drag queens and drag kings. Vocabulary has shifted in recent years and this really needs to be reflected in this article. Drag performers are not transgender, the transgender umbrella is not that wide, and transvestites should be in their own article, not lumped in here. Transgender people are people who's personal gender identity is not perfectly in line with their sex, cross-dressers are people who dress up and pretend to be the other gender (for good or bad reasons) and saying transvestites are transgender is like saying that Bruce Willis is a police officer - there's a difference between pretending to be something on TV and being something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.88.4 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. For instance, consider that the drag community is explicitly included under the trans- umbrella in 1979: http://i.imgur.com/wVRemzY.png . Keep in mind that this was Phyllis Frye - arguably the grandmother of trans law and extremely significant trans activist - using this term. The transgender archive in Houston holds numerous examples of the drag community (Lee Brewster, for example) being a significant part of the trans community and trans advocacy. I'd be happy to link the various articles to make my point. Ehipassiko (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The scope of this article encompasses perception, just as the opening sentence states: "... a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles." While the definition used by activists has narrowed, it remains pretty wide in general use, and the article should reflect that. Rather than conduct a wholesale purge of material, perhaps you could point out specific text that you take issue with, and we can discuss how to change it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is it assumes people know about the basics of what they discuss. By having it here, it is reaffirming something that is inaccurate - that a trans woman and a cross dresser are the same thing, or even in the same category. If people commonly referred to a group incorrectly, it wouldn't be included in the encyclopedia of the page unless it was written to say "this is a common misperception." It's not just activists who are using this term - the transgender community has been saying this for an extended period of time. Would it help if I brought up a number of explanations of the "transgender umbrella?" Because transgender people, who have a right to define themselves, are saying that cross-dressing is not under the Transgender umbrella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.119.246 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as crossdressers being part of the trans community, the TV info service, funded by Reed Erickson (a TS), was the arguably the first national trans community group. They did the first national survey of anti-trans laws and were one of the first (if not the first) to offer a national helpline. There's a multitude of examples which demonstrate that since the 1970s, CDers are part of the transgender community, Ehipassiko (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I see this conversation's a bit dead, but it is pretty important that it keep being disused, because people who identify with their gender of birth assignment but perform as as another gender for funzies, are not transgender, and the page is too... lets say delicate, for one person to just sweepingly cut out the inaccurate parts without discussion. Drag Queens are cis men in costumes, and often actively undermine transgender rights... I'm looking at you RuPaul. 138.69.160.1 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

IP, with regard to something like this discussion and editing Wikipedia in relation to it, we are supposed to go by WP:Verifiability (what the sources state), not our own opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the conversation should continue. We need proper sources to site so we can fix the article. 138.69.160.1 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For more opinions on these matters and involvement from people who might be willing to look over a lot of the literature, it is a good idea to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies (WP:LGBT). Or you could try some other form of WP:Dispute resolution, such as a WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • I agree that the vocabulary issue is muddled. I can understand why in the 1970s there would be a need for as large an umbrella as possible to get political action started. It may have made sense to lump all "gender variant" behaviors together at that time. But there is a world of difference between someone who is comfortable with their gender but who dresses in cross-gender fashion either for public entertainment or private sexual fetish vs. someone who has a brain gender / body gender mismatch. A drag peformer can have their brain gender and body gender totally aligned and simply enjoy performing. A person with a private sexual fetish can be very comfortable with his/her publicly expressed gender. Thus, drag peformers and transvestites are not the same as transgendered persons. A transgendered person has a brain gender / body gender mismatch (and the brain gender is the one that defines their gender). A transgendered person may -- or may not -- have distress over the mismatch, but the mismatch exists. That is not usually the case for drag performers or persons with fetishes. Thus, lumping them together actually promotes stereotypes rather than dispelling them. Again -- while efforts at legal protection may not be able to distinguish those persons who dress in a gender-variant way in public just for fun vs. those who "really need to do it" for psychological or medical reasons -- nuanced articles can make that distinction. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Transgender vs. transsexual

Under "Transgender vs. transsexual" it currently reads:

"Some people take issue with transsexual because Virginia Charles Prince, who started Transvestia, and built up the cross-dressing organization Tri-Ess, and likely coined "transgender", did so to distinguish cross dressers from gay, bisexual and transsexual people." :

While this sentence is factually false, I believe that it is important to talk about the Prince fountainhead myth because transsexuals who do not identify as being transgender have often cited this myth as being a significant reason that they do not identify with the term. We know that transgenderist is a younger term that transgender (TG used as an umbrella term in 1974), transgendered (used in reference to transsexuals in 1970) or transgenderism (used in reference to transsexuals in 1965). We know that Prince had somewhat aggressively asserted that she was the fountainhead of trans terms. Academics and trans activists who didn't know any better also spread the Prince fountainhead myth. Many leaders in the so-called "TS Separatist" movement asserted the Prince fountainhead myth as being central to their dislike of the term transgender:

“I have no idea why it is that the FTM transsexuals continually link themselves with transgender. Transgender is a term coined by and for a male transvestite, Charles “Virginia” Prince, who made it quite clear that he was not a transsexual and actually thought those of us who opted for surgery were delusional.” - http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=5465.

"Coined by rabidly transsexual phobic Charles “Virginia” Prince who published many of those crossdresser fantasy magazines of earlier days and who founded Tri-Ess, a rabidly homophobic and transsexual phobic network of support groups for crossdressers, “transgender” and “transgendered” suddenly were sold as shorthand for transsexual... Suddenly the term “transsexual” included whole new variations such as the “non-op” transsexual in addition to the prior pre operative and post operative. Never mind that the term transgender was coined for exactly this meaning originally, transgender was still tainted by those nasty sexually driven transvestites and so while it was being recast as “inclusive” (always hard to fight being “inclusive”, it’s one of those terms with high positive politically correct context) it was also stripped of it’s original meaning." - http://radicalbitch.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/was-janice-raymond-right/

“The coiner of the term transgender was Virginia Prince, a heterosexual crossdresser who held those of us who had sex reassignment surgery in contempt. Virginia was particularly vicious in her opinion regarding WBTs who were lesbian after sex reassignment surgery. She called us freaks and mistakes... As many people are aware, Virginia Prince, a male crossdresser and a staunch promoter of heterosexual transvestism since the late 1950s, invented the term “transgender” in the 1990s to distinguish male crossdressers from men and women born with HBS.” – http://ts-si.org/global-warning/2832-sex-gender-and-bathrooms-a-discussion-of-transgender-part-1:

'I know that the roots of the “Transgender Community” are in the heterosexual transvestite communities, that Virginia Prince coined Transgender. (The quibble point about Prince coining Transgenderist not Transgender is BS. Transgenderist is to transgender what feminist is to feminism.)" - http://womenborntranssexual.com/2011/09/07/transgender-inc-and-the-transgender-borg-collective-and-why-i-use-those-terms-for-the-transgender-community/:

“the term "transgender," or more specifically, "transgenderist" originated with Arnold Lowman, better known as Charles "Virginia" Prince. Yes, Prince came up with the term to describe those who crossdress full time.” - http://justjenniferblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/missing-bigger-picture.html:

"Ekins and King (p9, 2005) write about how Virginia Prince, an American male pharmacologist who went on to live as a female, coined the term transgender. In trying to place her (preferred pronoun) in a historical context they also recorded how Prince was against sex realignment surgery and her disdainful attitude towards transsexuals who underwent genital modification." - http://www.tracieokeefe.com/2012/04/sex-andor-gender-diverse-people-and-the-death-of-transgender-as-an-umbrella-term/:

"First of all, the term transgender was coined by a transsexual-hating crossdressing male named Charles Prince who wanted to separate himself from transsexuals. That fact alone sends shivers up our spines." Dana Taylor http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/image_thumb7.png:

The fictitious Prince myth has featured prominently in the arguments many so-called "TS Separatist" have made over the past several years and this theme is highlighted in that it is asserted in this very wiki article.

So, I think that the sentence needs to be altered to note that A.) it acknowledges that this myth has played a part in the rational behind rejecting transgender as a term; and, B.) acknowledges that the myth is factually incorrect - Prince did not, in fact, coin the term transgender.

Perhaps something like:

"Some people take issue with transsexual because it is falsely believed that Virginia Charles Prince, who started Transvestia, and built up the cross-dressing organization Tri-Ess, likely coined "transgender" to distinguish cross dressers from gay, bisexual and transsexual people."

I've not made much in the way of changes to the original sentence. All I've done is note that the belief is factually wrong. This, I think, preserves the truth that this myth is prominently featured in the non-transgender transsexual narrative. I started to suggest that the sentence be removed, but doing so covers up the reality that this myth seemed to be a driving force behind the anti-transgender narrative - which is important to note if there's going to be an entire section dedicated to this topic. --Ehipassiko (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You have several concurrent issues and it all boils down to what is to be reworded, how, and utilizing what sources. One issue is that the Prince stuff is factually incorrect. Fine, how to reword that and what sources to use. Then there's the assertions that the transgender community rejects the term, that Prince/TriEss are transphobic, homophobic, and that people have made labeling choices based on some or all of the above. I suggest for simplicity sake that we tackle the easiest one first and move on from there. Remember too long; didn't read is a factor in these discussions so maybe we cover one subject then start a new section for the next subject so we can keep it all moving along. If you want to propose some content again I'm happy to work with you. Insomesia (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ehipassiko... the problem with you editing this section is that you have a severe conflict of interest on this particular topic, and Wikipedia isn't a blog, or an opinion piece on Transadvocate. That said, I don't think that sentence belongs in the article, period. Personally, as a post-transsexual woman who does not identify with the transgender term, I don't care what Suzan Cooke, Cathryn Platine, Dana Lane Taylor, or Lisa Jain Thompson have to say on the matter. No more than what Cristan Williams, Donna Rice, Mercedes Allen, or Monica Roberts have to say. I don't identify with it because at this point, I'm just another woman. I suspect there are many more women like me than those who believe that stuff about Prince, or even know who Virginia Prince is (I didn't until long after I had dissociated from the TG umbrella). The problem with the sentence starting "Some people..." is that there could be about a bazillion reasons why someone doesn't identify with the term. And there are far better reasons, reasons held by far more people, than the Prince thing. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To Ehipassiko's credit they have been making talk page suggestions, very good ones by my read, that have resulted in much better article. I was happy to work with them before and am still happy to based on the model of what we first accomplished. As always I think we let the sources lead the way and as long as we have a few people giving feedback, I think we do better than just massive changes in the article. Insomesia (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this new, unsigned comment to the end of this section, where it belongs - bonze blayk (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC):

The distinction of using the term Transgender to refer to a broad spectrum of those who wished to express and/or experience various aspects of the opposite sex vs transsexual to refer to a person who wanted be a member of the opposite sex (a girl trapped in a boy's body or a boy trapped in a girl's body) was the topic of an extensive discussion in the usenet newsgroup net.women and net.motss in late 1984 and early 1985. During this period, about two dozen people engaged in the discussion and shortly after that, several members of that group published their own articles in other journals and academic papers. This broader discussion suggested that there was very broad spectrum that included ALL expressions of opposite sexuality, including fetish dressing, transvestites, drag queens, cross-dressers, pre-transition transsexuals and post-transition transsexuals - though technically, a post-transition transsexual would be transgendered in that the had experienced being both male and female as a full-time life-style.

Talk:Transgender‎; 00:14 . . (+1,043)‎ . . ‎69.116.156.85 (talk)‎

The first line of this section is proven false by the preceding section. The opening line reads, "Transsexual, unlike transgender, originated in medical and psychological communities." A psychiatrist was the first known person to suggest calling transsexualism "transgenderism" in 1965. It should be noted that until 1979, "transsexual" was a medical umbrella term used to reference everyone who crossdressed and didn't was hormones or surgery to those who did want hormones and surgery. In 1965, Transgenderism was suggested to refer to only those transsexuals who wanted hormones and surgery. It wasn't until the publication of the SOC I in 1979 that transsexual came to mean what it means today in the medical community.

I suggest that this line either be removed or that it be edited to note that this mistaken belief - a myth - has fueled discourse around the TG v TS controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehipassiko (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The last line in this section is an opinion that is not supported by the citation:

"Most of these issues can appeal even to conservatives, if framed in terms of an unusual sort of "maintenance" of traditional notions of gender for rare people who feel the need for medical treatments. Some trans people might paraphrase this by saying, "I don't challenge the gender binary. I just started out on the wrong side of it."

The citation quotes Hellen Boyd:

"the only part of the gender binary we *necessarily* challenge is the notion that people are always assigned to the right side of the binary at birth, and don’t need sympathy or help if the assignment goes wrong."

In what way does Boyd's statement support the idea that the conservative side of politics will support transsexuals? Additionally, Boyd's opinion is, in and of itself, unsubstantiated in that it turns a blind eye to the fact that the act of legal and medical transition breaks numerous religious and societal gender taboos. I think this opinion either needs to be substantiated or removed from the article. Ehipassiko (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection, I will remove the following as it is demonstrably FALSE:

"Transsexual was defined by Harry Benjamin in his seminal book The Transsexual Phenomenon."

He did not. The term was in use in even pop culture (showing up in books written by the likes of C. S. Lewis) and even as early as the early 1900s in English newspapers (not to mention its German use prior to Benjamin). --Ehipassiko (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ehipassiko, I moved your newer comments down, per WP:TALK. You placed them above your initial post that started this section, which made it seem like they came before the initial posts.

As for the Harry Benjamin text you removed, Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability, but the source used for the material that you removed is a WP:Primary source because it's a Harry Benjamin source. Therefore, you were right to challenge that material if it was saying that Harry Benjamin defined that term because, in that source, it's something he claims to have done. If he did, a WP:Secondary source should be used to cover that. However, perhaps the person who added that text was not trying to state that Harry Benjamin coined the term, but rather that he defined it in his book...just like other authors have defined the term in their books, in different ways. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • I humbly suggest that there should be more emphasis on current use and less emphasis on historical development of terms. Why? Becuase current (layman) use of transgender does seem to imply that the person has a brain gender/body gender mismatch. Whether the person has a gender identity dysphoria (GID) or not, the mismatch exists and generally requires mitigation of some type. The history of "transgender" as a term to cover persons withou a brain gender/body gender mismatch but who simply enjoy cross-gender displays -- is no longer the majority use of the term. Distinguishing transexual from transgender on the basis of "one who seeks reassignment surgery" vs. one who does not... also seems to be an outdated reference. To be clear -- people call B. Jenner (C. Jenner) a transgender person. Transexual seems very dated and 1970s. The history is interesting and it is true in many fields that terms start out with one meaning but eventually come to have another --sometimes contradictory -- meaning at the end of the day. I suggest this is one of those cases. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Bigender" and "See Also" section changes

• Suggest "A bigender (sometimes rendered as bi-gender or bi+gender)" be changed to "A bigender (sometimes referred to as bi-gender or dual gender)" as bi+gender is a non-existent term while "dual gender" is still in active use.

• Suggest that "LGBT" in the "See Also" section be raised in the list until it is in alphabetical order with the other "See Also" links. Right now it is erroneously at the bottom of the list.

• Suggest that a link to the "LGBT Portal" be added to the "See Also" section of the page. It's important to remember that transgender people are still part of LGBTQ.

Thank you.

174.99.111.29 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the suggestions! Insomesia (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Names?

Following the Chelsea Manning saga, I came here for more information regarding preferences transgender people have for names, but this article is sadly lacking. I *assume* most transgender people want to be called something other than their birth names, but I'm not sure, and I guess there might be some who don't. Have there been any studies on this subject? There must be something in reliable sources... StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You say to them, "Hello, what is your name and what are your preferred pronouns?" 69.23.60.94 (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Better yet, you say "Hi, I'm [Name] and my preferred pronouns are [pronouns], nice to meet you," and as with any polite conversation you'll probably get the same back. Most people don't start introductions with "What's your name?" they start with "My name is..." Of course that's assuming you know someones trans... then again, it might be good practice for us ALL to start mentioning our PPs in introductions, so that it becomes natural NOT to assume someone's pronouns. 138.69.160.1 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Article titles for transgendered people

This discussion may be of interest to readers of this talk page. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

This section of the article contains a red link to a deleted category, probably best to remove it. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Transgender surgery now covered by insurance in the state of Connecticut

Connecticut now require's health insurers to cover transgender transition from start to finish including surgery also known as (SRS) of (GRS) Hormone Replacement, and any and all expences related to treatment for this Mental Health Disorder(Gender Dysphoria).

I am speaking for Connecicut Only but will refreance other states since have passed similer laws in regards to coverage for Gender Dysphoria.

The Connecticut Insurance Department is directing all health insurance companies operating in the state to provide coverage of mental health counseling, hormone therapy, surgery and other treatments related to a patient's gender transition.

Joining a handful of other states, the department issued a New Law to insurance companies last week which seeks to ensure that "individuals with gender dysphoria … are not denied access to medically necessary care because of the individual's gender identity or gender expression."

Deputy insurance Commissioner Anne Melissa Dowling said the state wanted to go out and affirmatively make the policy very clear.

The insurance department based it's position on two state statutes:

1. A 2011 law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and expression, and laws requiring coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders.

2. Gender dysphoria — also known as gender identity disorder — is listed in the latest revised edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and qualifies for coverage,

the insurance department stated in its bulletin, which was issued Dec. 19.

"Under these statutes, health insurers are required to pay 'covered expenses for treatment provided to individuals with gender dysphoria where the treatment is deemed necessary under generally accepted medical standards the insurance department wrote in the bulletin.

"Gender dysphoria describes a condition in which an individual is intensely uncomfortable with their biological gender and strongly identifies with, and wants to be the opposite gender."

Regulator's in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont and Washington D.C. have issued a new law instructing insurers of the said states to cover treatment for transgender patiants, according to the GLAD. The Organization is pushing for similer insuranse rules in every New England State. At this time Connecticut is the only state in New England to cover the cost of all expences related to a Transgenderd Indevidual.

Insurance Companies in the state of connecticut have 3 months from the day this law was set to review their policies to insure they are in compliance and have the coverage written in their policy's.

I am not sure if Medicare or Medicade Services will cover this; More information is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.55.120 (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the distinction between gender and sex evolving i.e. a "moving target"?

Hi Flyer 22, Thank you for your recent edits in the Transgender vs: Transsexuality section. I just wanted to clarify for you why I tried to remove the "Benjamin material". It seemed to me that that material, which was written approximately 50 years ago, was written before some current distinctions have arisen. I am somewhat new to all of this, and have only an academic interest in it. I have been attempting to understand the terminology being used, and to the best of my understanding, there seems to be an "evolving" phraseology and set of definitions. As best as I can tell, the most current, most widely used, and academically accepted phraseology distinguishes between sex and gender, (and therefore between transsex and transgender) by defining sex as something physical or material, and gender as something essentially psychological. Would you say that is accurate? I look forward to knowing your view on this. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just spent some more hours trying to read up on "current" definitions, and these too seem to me to be somewhat muddled and with no one single definition gaining prominence over all of the others. I give up, and I agree with your edits. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Scott P. is referring to these edits that we made: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. He invited me to this discussion. Scott P., I don't have a lot to comment on regarding your query, except to state that it was inappropriate to remove the entire section and replace it with that one view; that's why I reverted you, as noted in that first diff-link shown above. I see that you also noted the interchangeability of the terms at the beginning of the section. While there have been different views expressed on the sex vs. gender topic over the years, I have not seen the evolving distinction between sex and gender that you suggested above. Someone who might be able to help on this matter is EvergreenFir, who has studied gender extensively, possibly more than I have. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I see some attempts by some individuals in the academic, psychiatric and psychological communities to standardize the terminologies, but not yet with any great measure of success. Until then, I suppose we will have to muddle along with whatever it is that we have. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Transgender vs. Transgendered

I note that "Transgendered" redirects to "Transgender". I've encountered people who have very strong opinions on both sides of that question, and it seems to me that picking one side over the other without even a mention that there is a dispute over the terminology seems a little out of character for Wikipedia. I'd at least have expected some kind of mention of the fact that there is a question of terminology to be had there. (Note: I have no actual sources I could cite on that; all I know is that for most of my life everyone I know, including trans people, has said "transgendered", then a year or so back I started encountering tumblr people who were utterly devoted to the eradication of anyone who said that.) So I'm not sure what to do here. But it seems like a redirect over a disputed piece of terminology ought to at least mention why it's a redirect, rather than being a different page, or how the decision of which name was "canonical" was made. Wikiseebs (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

An article can only have one name, and that's how redirects work. If terminology is disputed it can be mentioned in the article along with the source. Bhny (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Transgendered" is a fake past participle. "Misgendered" is a past participle, because it is the adjective form of the verb "to misgender". For example, a news article might read "The misgendered employee filed a sexual harassment suit". In this case, we understand that the employee was a victim of misgendering. If someone were to write about a "transgendered person", I'd wonder about the mythical process of "transgendering" by which one might "transgender" someone, as if "transgender" were a verb (it isn't). There is no "transgendering" process. Someone is transgender regardless of medical intervention. Not every trans person needs medical treatment for transition. For reference: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/03/13/a-transgender-manual-of-style/ 108.246.17.225 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mental illness

Transgender is defined as the "state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex". It was described by psychiatrists. Is this not then a mental illness, or was it regarded as a mental illness? Should not there be a section on this aspect of it - the psychological?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), the aspect you mention is covered by the gender identity disorder topic, which is addressed in the Transgender healthcare section. There is debate among psychiatrists and psychologists as to whether or not gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria as it's called in some texts, is truly a mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The American Medical Association agrees with with other national and international medical organizations that "Gender Identity Disorder" is a "serious medical condition". It is not a mental illness. While dysphoria is psychological, dysphoria is a condition that is very successfully treated with medical intervention. 108.246.17.225 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is a mental disorder in the sense that it's not a physical disorder. That said, for the sake of context, "A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul McHugh article

Former Johns Hopkins psychiatric chief Paul Mchugh published an un-paywalled piece in the Wall Street Journal questioning recent political and media treatment of the transgender issue. He concludes:

"Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder."

Among the author's claims:

• that transgenderism is a mental disorder that "does not correspond to physical reality" and "can lead to grim psychological outcomes", comparable to bulimia, anorexia, and body dysmorphic disorder.

• that the considerable majority of children reporting transgender feelings subsequently stopped having those feelings when not given medical treatment or sex-reassignment surgery.

• that after observing results from its pioneering sex-reassignment surgical program in the 1960s, Johns Hopkins stopped performing such procedures in the 1970s because they did not appear to improve the patients' ability to adjust socially. (But note: this decision was quite possibly taken at his direction, if he was chief of psychiatry at the time.)

• That administration of puberty-delaying hormones to children having feelings of transgenderism or gender confusion is close to child abuse:

"Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting."

Given the author and source, IMHO his opinions on the subject of transgenderism would warrant a fair bit of weight, so I wanted to start a conversation. There will probably be rebuttal pieces in the very near future that also warrant a close look. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

He's been a transphobic hate-speaker for a long time. His evidence is very selective and about as authoritative as scientists who are skeptical of global climate change. His opinions run counter to multiple major medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. Trans people are beaten to death and dehumanized into widescale suicidality. It's transphobia that causes early deaths for trans people, not "mental illness". It's transphobia that causes mental illness---not being transgender. http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/wall-street-journal-runs-op-ed-from-longtime-anti-trans-psychiatrist-paul-m 108.246.17.225 (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Anybody else want to weigh in? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul has shown over the last few years that he wants to undermine the LGTB community. So I say he has little to add to this article. Especially considering that mainstream Psychology and Psychiatry does not agree with him. At least not anymore. So no I do not think this article needs to be mentioning anything about a guy that is trying to push a certain pov. Just like Alex Jones or Fox news their stuff is not put in the Barrack Obama article. NathanWubs (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think an alleged failure to be supportive of the transgender movement has any bearing on his stature as a source, which seems to be rather formidable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As said below his views are rejected by the majority of the medical establishment, which has a bearing on his stature as a source. Meaning its small, that its fringe at best. Also its not failure to be supportive or anything. Its actively trying to undermine the LGTB community and its rights. But even if that was not the case, his views are rejected by the majority. NathanWubs (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A minority view from a renowned physician is not WP:FRINGE, so please don't refer to that policy again. And however you want to phrase his supportiveness or lack thereof, that isn't something that prevents his notable views from being reflected in a WP article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter how notable a person is and their expertize. Their view can still be considering WP:FRINGE. A good example of this is Michael Behe a biochemist pretty notable in his field. But he has the fringe ideas that support Intelligent Design . In this case the majority of the medical establishment does not support his views. The normal fringe mostly does not even support his views on these matters. So his views are WP:Fringe. Also please show notablity besides the primary source (his writing) that you have given. NathanWubs (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Expertise" is spelled with no Z's.

And just to be clear, we're talking about a former majority view in the medical community that did not cease to be so until quite recently. The APA only declassified transgenderism as a mental disorder about a year and a half ago. A former majority view that is currently in the process of becoming disfavored is not even in the same ballpark/league/sport as WP:FRINGE. So again, please stop citing to that policy as it's a waste of our time. A quick look at the examples offered under the policy will confirm this — intelligent design and other lunatic fringe stuff after which the policy is named. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering when your annoying Grammar Nazi side would come out. You are using the right word: "former". But I will drop the fringe and make it simple. His views are not the majority anymore. (Even if you were right about 1 1/2 half year which you are not. edit: See below) So if you want to add anything to this article it would be in a minor way. As the weight of his opinion piece is small. NathanWubs (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to reach an understanding. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

McHugh's contrarian views on transgenderism, much like his views on homosexuality ("an erroneous desire") and post-traumatic stress disorder (manufactured by "antiwar psychiatrists"), are rejected by the vast majority of the medical establishment. His viewpoint is only noteworthy in that he's responsible for the Catholic Church's position on such issues; it might be worth mentioning on the "transgenderism and religion" page. --Fran Rogers (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable views, even purportedly contrarian ones, generally get reflected on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Contrarianism itself isn't the issue, but weight, and McHugh's views today are well on the fringe. (On the contrary, his historical role is significant, and no history of gender transition therapy would be complete without mentioning his opposition to and eventual closing of the Johns Hopkins clinic; the sex reassignment therapy article does just that.) --Fran Rogers (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments to Nathan Wubs above. I believe you are badly misunderstanding WP:FRINGE, which does not refer to views like McHugh's. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your fear of that policy is telling. 😉 In response to your reply to Mr. Wubs, I'll note that the APA and AMA's views on gender transition are quite a bit older than the publication of the DSM-5, and that the debate is over the efficacy of gender transition, not whether the condition it's treating is "a mental disorder." You may want to read the APA's literature on the issue. --Fran Rogers (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of that policy, which, as I've just amply demonstrated to you and you seem to implicitly acknowledge, has absolutely zero to do with this distinguished medical expert's notable views published in an extremely high-quality RS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you propose what you would like to add, so there could be a more clear discussion about it. And make sure that you add that this is his opinion and that he is in the minority. I would add also that he cherry picks the study he uses, but that would be WP:OR so that could not be done. NathanWubs (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will withdraw from this discussion and further discussions about this man. NathanWubs (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The piece is now paywalled, complicating things somewhat. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Genderqueer section

Isn't this article a bit outdated? I've seen genderqueer most often being a synonym for non-binary gender identity i.e. everything that is transgender, but not transsexual.

Together with binary transgenders (as is nowadays seen as the increasingly politically correct form to refer to a transsexual, much like the term homosexual was superseded by gay and lesbian), intersex people, and IIRC cisgender people of very nonconformist gender expressions (e.g. transvestites and cross-dressers), they are known as trans* people in online environments like Reddit, Tumblr and Twitter. People generally don't name all the various kinds of the new umbrella term sense of genderqueer when explaining the concept.

Should this article group the narrower sense of genderqueer inside a wider one, making it specific that agender, demigender, intergender-demigender (yep, being not fully neither a thing nor another and not caring a lot about either "side" – but more about your own uniqueness and expression and your shared personhood with all the other people in the world – is kind of a gender identity in itself, isn't it?), intergender (a shared bubble of androgyny as gender), bigender (two or more individual bubbles for each different "genderness"), "third gender" (e.g. hijra, travesti), two-spirited (I think this concept kind of mostly or completely overlaps third gender in an Indigenous North American context, but anyway), genderfluid and maybe gender abolitionist people often identify as this too?

But I think this would also be controversial. Blurred lines between sexual orientation and gender identity while identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth is actually not a very properly transgender thing and thus the original genderqueers seem to be increasingly alienated from this "umbrella term for non-binary gender[ identitie]s" definition.

But of course, I need second opinions, and even more so, I wouldn't do original research about it. A main issue with this article in my opinion, though, is that it does not make a clear defined line between the narrower sense of transgender (solely about gender identity, irrespective of gender expression) and the wider one (part of what is now known as trans* i.e. including those who are cisgender but have a nonconformist gender expression).

I mean, I've even heard that in some places of North America, there is a transgender (transsexual + genderqueer) vs. nonconformist cis (transvestites + cross-dressers) rivalry. Not that I think we should allow coverage for some limited anti-outsider/us vs. them sentiment in some subcultures/communities, but if that's true, then the description of transgender as it is now (one that is not compatible with the views of the community itself about themselves and their defining point) is to some extent problematic. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I came back here just to say that I couldn't understand the Genderqueer section as it is, and all of the above comment is just more confusing. If one of the goals of this article is to clearly explain what these politically correct terms actually mean to people outside of these communinities, then it is failing miserably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.128 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox request?

I couldn't help but notice that there was an infobox request at the top of this talk page, despite the fact that articles of this type tend not to have infoboxes. Should this request be removed? If not, could someone tell me why it needs an infobox, what type of infobox it should be, and what information would be included in it? BenLinus1214^talk 15:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed it, per this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. BenLinus1214^talk 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Language link & Is that other wikipdia right or outdated?

Another wikipedia starts the (article of this) topic with the following sentence: "Transgender[ness], also referred to as transsexualism, is a gender identity disorder where an individuals gender identity is opposite av the individuals biological sex."

If someone can change the language link from our article, to Norwegian bokmål: Our article should link to Transkjønnethet. --Omegaslug (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New leading section

Hey All, the current leading section seems a bit POV (with the first sentence and definition being from an advocacy group) and also quite long. I think we can do better. Here is a working draft. I recognize that this is a sensitive and controversial issue for a lot of people so I'm proposing these changes on the talk page to start a discussion. I would love some constructive comments:

Transgender is one of a myriad labels given to or accepted by people who do not identify with their biological sex. This is not to be confused with people who are Intersex. This label also does not imply any information about sexual orientation.

The psychiatric label for people who experience this and significant dissatisfaction that might motivate them to make changes such as sex reassignment surgery is Gender dysphoria. Many transgender people do not identify as having a mental disorder and so the association with transgender people and gender dysphoria is controversial.

Because the term transgender implies information about the self-identity of the individual in question (identities that may be nearly as varied as the number of individuals themselves) definitions are varied.

Johnathlon (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad attempt, but honestly I don't think the lead is too long at all (see WP:LEADLENGTH). It could use some wordsmithing and maybe even another paragraph though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnathlon, I don't see a WP:Neutral violation with the current lead. I prefer the current lead, and, per WP:Lead, it's more accurate and summarizes the article better than your version does. And, for the record, many transgender people prefer that people state "sex" or "assigned sex" instead of "biological sex." Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

___

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015

Your definition of transgender repeatedly defines gender identification as taking place "at birth". This is obviously and conspicuously inaccurate and may reveal intentional biases that render the definition lacking or intentionally inacurate. Without reference to who or why this biased definition is written and in the interest of medical, anatomical, genetic etc. accuracy, please correct this definition to show that physical gender is determined at conception based on the 23rd chromosome. This in no way detracts from the discussion of transgender but accurately defines when the physical and genetic determination of assigned gender is made. Very sincerely; Dr. Mark Carr

207.119.122.202 (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about sex, not gender. There is no "physical gender". And sex is not determined solely by chromosomes. Funcrunch (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Being born transsexual isn't primarly a "gender"-topic

One of the main misconcepts about transsexualism is, that some lobby-groups (many of them are so called psycho-sexologists) argue, that being born with body-parts that differ from the birth sex (being born transsexual) is a gender-topic. But that isn't true. It would be good that wikipedia includes not only a single view onto the topic. As good journalism has to be objective (but often isn't) it is much more important in wikipedia to include more than one view (cause it's an encyclopedia). You can start with analyzing the thesis of some people who 1974 invented the term "gender dysphoria" (Norman Fisk) and what people are the followers of this thesis (they use words like "gender dysphoria", "gender incongruence", "gender expression" to describe transsexual people - what many transsexual people do refuse) and to search for people who do stand in opposite to that. And think logically: body-parts who differ from the birth-sex do not have to do with "gender", cause they are there before someone comes out as transsexual person. Maybe the trigger for transgender persons to come out as transgender is gender-related, like clothing for e.g., and maybe some transsexual share this experience but it would be wrong to generalize, that all transsexual people do have a gender-related trigger. Many transsexual people do have a body-related (sex!) trigger for coming out as transsexual. So a transsexual girl for e.g. could have played with cars and "boyish" things but nevertheless being a transsexual girl. Please think about it. It doesn't males sense to use wikipedia as lobbying-platform for a single-edge worldview. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what change you are proposing in the article. Could you possibly state more concisely and specifically what you would like to change? Thanks, BenLinus1214^talk 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

5.56.218.103 if you have a point of view that you feel is missing from this artificial, one you think will help improve it, one you can backup with reliable references, do go ahead and add it. --Devin Murphy (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is born transsexual. You are thinking of a hermaphrodite. It is very different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite is not an appropriate word for describing humans. Intersex is the preferred term. And I don't believe that's what the OP is getting at, but that's getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)