Talk:Transgender/Archive 5
This is an archive of past discussions about Transgender. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Definition is wrong and not supported by the rest of the article
Transgender does not necessarily have anything to do with how the person identifies themselves. That is what gender dysphoria is. Transgender is a blanket term that includes all kinds of things. For instance someone with transvestic fetishism is transgender even if they don't have gender dysphoria. This is already in the article. The definition at the top does not match up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk • contribs)
- From what I can tell, the article says it includes many things according to the bullet points in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding a WP:HAT to Transsexual and vice versa
Would people particularly object or support the introduction of a hatnote to Transsexual and vice versa from Transgender? Perhaps the "See also" or "Further information" template, though I am open to suggestions. I have posed this question on Talk:Transsexual. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I replied here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Part of speech
In diff, I tweaked the first line of the lead to reflect the fact that transgender is usually an adjective and not a noun meaning "the state of...". This is what the cited GLAAD reference says regarding the word's part of speech, and it matches how the word used in the very next sentence and how the related word transsexual is used (part-of-speech-wise) in the lead of its article. Most dictionaries, e.g. Oxforddictionaries.com and Cambridge, have transgender as only an adjective, and the few like Dictionary.com which do have a noun sense have only an "a person who..." sense, not a "state of..." sense (such a sense does exist, to be clear, but it's very rare). -sche (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Transsexual people and science
The above-named section consistently refers to "transsexuals". Assuming that this is correct and the studies were specifically of transsexuals, should the section be moved to the article "transsexual"? A summary and pointer could be retained here, of course. Also: is there a clearer name for the section? "Transsexual people and science" sounds like it might contain information on the contributions of trans scientists to science. Perhaps "Scientific studies of transsexuality"? -sche (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Changing the header makes sense to me, so I've gone ahead and done that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of moving the whole section - it's fairly specific to transsexual people. Chocolate vittles (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Clarifying_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_in_which_transgender_individuals_are_mentioned_in_passing addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC); added missing link, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Should we put up a banner on this talkpage saying to look at MOS:Identity for guidelines on referring to transgender individuals, both in passing and in depth? Just wondering. Thanks BTW for sharing this, though it seemed a bit confusing for a while since the second link is missing. You had only put
[[]]
without a link but they are near each other and I've put in the link for you anyway. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)- Thanks for the fix. Regarding the tag, yes you should but you might want to hold off. The RfC has spawned a side-discussion of whether the rule should be moved from WP:MOS to MOSBIO. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Basic definition is not correct
First discussion
|
---|
The whole article has many problems but let's start with the basic definition. It currently reads "Transgender people expeience [SIC] a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex." But that is not how the APA defines transgender. They define it like this "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" http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx The difference is that the wiki definition leaves out most transgender people and only includes people with identity issues. It is a definition for gender dysphoria or transsexual not for transgender. Transgender includes all kinds of other things besides people with gender dysphoria such as transvestic fetishists. Like I said the whole article is bad but let's start there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Second discussion
|
---|
Yes it has been brought up before and will continue to be until you get it right. Transgender is not "sometimes" defined as an umbrella term. It is an umbrella term. You are confusing transgender with gender dysphoria and transsexual. They are not the same thing. And no the term transvestite is not offensive. It is a medical term. Your exclusion of transvestites without gender dysphoria from the definition of transgender is offensive though, and not accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
My definition is sourced thoroughly with the APA. It is even later down in this article. Transvestic fetishists are transgender. They do not claim a different identity of any kind. There is no debate here. The definition includes cross gender behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that the basic definition should be as follows: Transgender is adjective that describes a person who self identifying internalized gender is different than the sex assigned to him or her at birth.[1] This term is often misused as a noun and is considered offensive if used to title a group, e.g. “the transgenders”, “gays”, “the blacks.” Appropriate use would be “the transgender community”, “gay men” and “black Americans”. Please remember that taking away the aspect of humanity from a term makes it offensive e.g. little person vs midget I also think that the term "transvestite" is very offensive and very outdated. It would be nice if we used a more politically correct term. The most commonly accepted term is "crossdress" and therefore "crossdresser"Brianallen90802 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Brianallen90802
You guys still have it wrong and have a bunch of weasel words like claiming "crossdressers" (transvestites) are only "infrequently" considered transgender. This is false. They are transgender. Once again, transgender and gender dysphoria are not the same thing. Most transgender people do not have gender dysphoria and do not live as the opposite sex in daily life. Anyone who finds terminology like transvestite offensive needs to stop working on this page. There is no argument on of this. This is the offical APA definition of the term transgender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive me but I am transgender and if I'm not mistaken I thought this was a discussion. I starting to think that the terms like "weasel words" are rather uncalled for. As far as finding something offensive I believe that being transgender makes me qualified to know know what is offensive. e.g. an asian won't find the "N" word offensive so does that mean it isn't? Also the APA defintion doesn't explicitely mention crossdresser as of "transgender" because it is different although it is part of their "umberella" definition. TG is about self identity and CD is about gender expression. Moreover the term transvestites is offensive because it now has a strong sexual connotation vs crossdressers.(like shemale, or ladyboy) If you don't believe me please type transvestites.com and see the differences between that and crossdressers.com. I think that you tell some you are TV and they look that up they'll think you are dressing for sexual pleasure whereas if you say that you are CD and they look that up then they think that you are dressing for gender expression. Please note that the APA not refers to "gender dysphoria" as a stress disorder brought on by dealing with the mental distress associated with transgender issues.[1] Brianallen90802 (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Brianallen90802
Of course I agree that not all experiences are universal, however I would say that the vast majority of transgender people would prefer to not be referred to as "shemales" or "transexuals" or "ladyboys". It is very similar in the way the word "retarded" at first didn't mean something negative but over time it took on a negative connotation. Thus today referring to someone who is mentally challenged as retarded is offensive. Wikipedia is a perfect plateform because it changes with the current trends so when something like referring to transgender people as "transexuals" becomes offensive we can then inform people that it may be rather insensitive. Brianallen90802 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Brianallen90802, this edit you made (which was reverted) is a no-go. This article is not simply about the term; see the WP:Refers essay. And we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I'm really starting realize why wikipedia is perceived as the biggest online joke. It seem that any type of improvement that will further the educational value it but disagrees with a single individuals opinion is deleted. Brianallen90802 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
|