Talk:Transgender/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Requesting A Wikipedia Admin to Review the Georgian (.GE) version of the Transgender page.

Hi,

The Georgian "Transgender" page has serious factual flaws. https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%A2%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%A1%E1%83%92%E1%83%94%E1%83%9C%E1%83%93%E1%83%94%E1%83%A0%E1%83%98

Here is a google translation of the "Caused" section on that page:

"The cause of transgendence may be different variations during childbirth, which may be due to nervous stress, some medication, lack of nutrition, etc. Result. The expression of such violations varies widely within the boundaries, thus explaining the diversity of transgender clinical options. In the case of nuclear (pronounced) transgendation, sexual education does not effectively affect sexual intuition, but in case of correction of extreme (smoother) expressions, it positively affects. Transgender is characterized by behavioral forms that are related to the feeling of belonging to the opposite sex. For example, children ask that they call the name of the opposite sex and introduce anti-sex clothing, Boys are happy to play with dolls with other girls, girls fight with boys, play football and other boy games. Parents' attempts to change the child-transgender behavior are often unsuccessful to change their minds or punishments. They are persistently demanding recognition from those around them in the sex that they are entrusted to. The aspiration towards the opposite sex is particularly stronger with the active functioning of sexually active glands. Adolescents are concerned with the growth of genital and the development of secondary signs that contradict their self-consciousness. Girl-transgenders perceive breast glands and start menstruation as a catastrophe. Sexually enthusiastic forms of this age are usually changed: women-transgender women develop in women, And men - to men. Such a desire is perceived as being homosexual, but in reality it is not, as sexually consensual man-transgender women have an intimate relationship with women and deny it as homosexual."

Here is a google translate of the "Sexual Life" section on that page:

"Sexual life of most transgender people is associated with the serious difficulty of choosing a sexual partner, as the object of worship is usually contrary to the attempt to establish close relationships. About a quarter of them (more often than men) try to enter into sexual contact with the representatives of the opposite sex, but after a few attempts, they are bleeding. If the transgender is able to find a permanent sexual partner of their own sex, sooner or later the different difficulties appear, because the neighbors are perceived to be negative, however, sexually transmitted to transgender is not the most important in life. All their attention and aspirations are primarily aimed at bringing their appearance and body in line with their own sexual consciousness, Also, it is important for them to recognize public attachment to the opposite sex. Because of that, they do not even look back from very complicated surgical interventions. In relatively light forms of transgendation, however, there is a psychic feeling of different sexual intercourse, but most of these transgenders are gradually adapting, finding compensation in activities, habits and behaviors that are contrary to sex. For example, transgender men choose especially prestigious jobs: pilots, distant maritime capital, investigations, etc. Which helps them not only in self-esteem but also in the community of men. The profession justifies their habits, behavior style, style of dress. Strongly expressed transformation, without changing gender,"

Google translation flaws aside, that page clearly has factual errors.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Not an Admin but two points, first, it's on the Georgian Wikipedia which is outside of the jurisdiction of the en. Wikipedeans and Policies. Secondly, for a far faster Admin response, maybe put a note on the Admin Noticeboard page? They're likely to say the same, that it's outside the English Wiki's jurisdiction but recommend that you take the resources and to possibly edit their page from there. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

Change from: In what is now the United States and Canada, many Native American and First Nations peoples recognized[152] the existence of more than two genders, such as the Zuñi male-bodied Ła'mana,[153] the Lakota male-bodied winkte,[154] and the Mohave male-bodied alyhaa and female-bodied hwamee.[155] Such people were previously[156] referred to as berdache but are now referred to as Two-Spirit,[157] and their spouses would not necessarily have been regarded as gender-different.[155]

To: Two spirited (add wiki link) referees to an individual whom has a masculine and feminine spirit. It is also an umbrella term which may refer to a wide variety of gender variances, such as: gay, bisexual, and/or gender queer, etc. The use of the term by non-indigenous peoples can be considered cultural appropriation, as many first nations people feel two-spiritedness is more than an identity, it is a traditional role.

because: I have chosen to edit the two-spiritedness reference on Wikipedia's Transgender page as it very briefly mentions the First Nations term. What they have previously written implies that Two-spiritedness refers only to Indigenous transgendered people, however it is also used as an umbrella term that represents much more than just transgender. It can also be used by Indigenous peoples to refer to other gender variances such as: gender queer, cross-dresser whom have multiple gender identities, gay, bisexual, lesbian, transexual, and of course transgender. I will also include the link of Toronto's two-spirited community page, 2Spirits, to the transgendered wikipedia. The importance of accurately representing Turtle Islands Indigenous community greatly impacts the way non-Indigenous Canadians participate/view reconciliation.

source: Ristock, J., Zoccole, A., and Passante, L. (2010). Aboriginal Two-Spirit and LGBTQ Migration, Mobility and Health Research Project. Winnipeg.

Add Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit Kp.snitzz (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done This is a well-formatted request, so congrats for that, since most requests don't even make it that far. Unfortunately, you haven't explained why it would be an improvement to the article to remove content that is backed by six footnotes, along with the citations themselves. Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Medical assistance in transitioning

The lead has contained the following sentence early in the first paragraph since it was added two years ago by User:-sche:

Transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another.

Recently, in this edit Drg2010 (talk · contribs) changed the word sex above to gender. After a revert with explanation, Drg2010 changed it to gender once again, without comment. I believe this is incorrect, and the word used in this context should be sex. As I explained in the edit summary of my revert: No.They are already that gender; they are changing sexual features (anatomy, hormones, etc.) to match.

Although there is some overlap and confusion between the terms sex and gender, especially in non-academic settings and even in discussing trans topics, I believe that in the framework of an encyclopedic article where the context is about changing primary sexual characteristics like genital anatomy, secondary sex characteristics like breast tissue, and endocrinological changes like sex hormones, we are talking about sex and not gender.

Note that there's nothing wrong per se with the expression, "transition from one gender to another" when the subject is changing gender and not sex, as it is, for example, here. But when the subject is surgical and medical intervention for anatomical and hormonal changes, we are talking about sex, and not gender, in my opinion.

Drg2010, if you disagree, please provide your reasoning, as I'd like to restore the original version from 2016. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comment from Drg, I restored the more accurate original wording. I also restored "[other definitions...] conceptualize transgender people as a third gender", since its removal seems to have been based on misunderstanding. I'm not sure how to make the wording clearer, although suggestions are very much welcome. I considered switching the order of the clauses ("other definitions conceptualize trans people as a third gender, or include third-gender people as trans"), but since the preceding sentences are about what various definitions include, it makes more sense to lead with "other definitions include third-gender people" and only thereafter mention that still other definitions do it the other way around. Maybe "conceptualize" should be changed to some other word: "...or include transgender people in one or more third genders"? -sche (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

France

@Mathglot: Regarding the France statement, can I suggest "The French Government claimed that they removed GID etc." instead of "France removed gender identity disorder as a diagnosis by decree in 2010, but according to French trans rights organizations, beyond the impact of the announcement itself, nothing changed"? Else the contradiction between "they did" and "nothing changed" makes no sense. --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

or @Flyer22 Reborn: or @07Alpha55: --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Lewisiscrazy I think it would be disingenuous to say "claimed that they" did something, as it sounds like we would be using weasel words to cast doubt whether it were true, or not, that they actually removed it. It would be like using scare quotes, e.g., if we wrote The French government "removed" the disorder as a diagnosis... the first thing one would think, was, "well, I guess they didn't really remove it," due to the scare quotes.

You can certainly include what a French trans rights organization said, but I'd put it in a separate sentence, as they are separate events and each can stand alone on its own. Furthermore, let me assure you that there is no contradiction whatever between "they did [remove it]" and "nothing changed," precisely because the subject of the first part is "the French government" and the subject of the second part is "a spokesperson from a trans rights organization," so all the more reason to separate those into two sentences, to make that break and the independence of the two, separate agents (sentence subjects) in each case more clear.

Finally, if there is any doubt whether or not the French government really removed the GID criteria (not just "claimed" that they removed it), then I hope that you will accept the word of this first year law book, or of the Conseil de l'Europe, and the word of the Assemblée Nationale (as published in the Journal Officiel) as the final words on this subject. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: @Flyer22 Reborn: @07Alpha55:

The sentence regarding France on the main page reads “France removed GID as a diagnosis by decree”. First, this statement is unclear since one will wonder: “removed from what?”. Second, it is very misleading: a psychiatric diagnosis of GID is still a requirement to process medical claim reimbursements in France. What really happened in 2010 is that GID was moved from an administrative list of psychiatric illnesses to another list of long term illnesses that entitle free health care, but it still had to be diagnosed according to the F64.0 CIM10 criteria (proof is provided below and in all the sources you mention). Who (except French politicians) would summarise this change by the statement “France removed GID as a diagnosis”?

I suggest that we replace "France removed gender identity disorder as a diagnosis by decree in 2010, but according to French trans rights organizations, beyond the impact of the announcement itself, nothing changed" with the less exhilarating, but much more accurate following sentence: "In 2010, France moved GID from a psychiatric list to a non-psychiatric list of long term illnesses that entitle free health care, but according to trans rights organizations, beyond the impact of the announcement itself, nothing changed."

The sources given in the main article and by you in the above discussion actually do not support the claim that "GID is no longer a diagnosis". They do say instead that GID was removed from a list of psychiatric illnesses (“GID Dropped from List of Mental Illnesses” (www.loc.gov), “transsexualism no longer classified as mental illness” (Le Monde), 1. “removing GID from the list of psychiatric conditions”, 2. “removing transexuality from the list of "long term psychiatric conditions”, 3. “removing GID (or transsexualism) from the admission criteria of long term supposedly psychiatric conditions (A.L.D. n° 23)”). Therefore, if you accept the word of the first year law book and the other sources you mention (as I am sure you will), there is no doubt that the French government did not removed the GID criteria. They just moved it to a different list of illnesses.

The list we are talking about is one of the three lists of long term illnesses that entitle totally free health care. The feb 8th 2010 decree number 2010-125 that you mention says that “early onset GID” (“trouble précoce de l’identité de genre”) is removed from the list of the “long term psychiatric illnesses” that give right to totally free health care (“affection longue durée” means long-term illness).

There is a list of 30 long term illnesses that entitle free health care, where number 23 is “psychosis, severe identity disorder, mental retardation” (“psychose, trouble grave de la personnalité, arriération mentale”). It used to include GID before 2010 (diagnosed according to the CIM-10 criteria) it no longer does after 2010

Does it mean that you cannot have free surgery? No. GID is now considered as part of a different list of illnesses, number 31 (“hors liste”), the list of “unlisted (sic) long term illnesses”. There is no law or decree that clearly defines who has a right to free health care in this context, but the procedure was clarified in a letter sent from the minister of health in 2010. This is not an official document. All we have is a copy from the web site of the psychologist Tom Reucher. Bottom of page 3, the text says that the CIM-10 code F64.0 must be used (F64.0 used to be “Transsexualism”). --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point about lack of clarity with "France removed GID as a diagnosis by decree" wrt "removed from what?" so if we added "from the list of long-term diagnoses," would that be enough to assuage your concerns?

One concern of mine, is that this is the "Transgender" page, not the Evolution in the French government's legislative approach to Transgender diagnorsis page, and too much additional verbiage starts to become undue weight, and perhaps already is. I don't think we should argue the arcane particularities and ins and outs of decrees and French law, and I only included those refs as proof that this actually happened because two previous reverts seemed to imply that it had not.

However, if you feel that just adding the words above isn't sufficient, I have no objection to adding a (sourced) {{efn}} note inline, as long as we don't burden the inline text with too much additional text on what you have to agree is an incredibly minute point about something on the very edges of the topic, and may already be unduly stressed already. In fact, I wouldn't object to shortening the current exposition about French law, just saying something like, "French law on GID has been evolving" and either leave it at that, or drop an {{efn}} or a link to another article more on point for this material. I just feel there have been way too many words expended about this minor topic already. Most of this discussion, and the proposed wording, might be more relevant at LGBT rights in France in a new section specifically covering GID. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: (De)pathologization is certainly not "on the very edges of the topic"; and it is important enough that it should not be treated lightly.

So no, GID was not at all “removed from the list of long-term diagnoses”, it was merely “removed from the list of psychiatric long-term diagnoses”, but if we say only that we miss the point: there was no depathologization, GID was just removed from a list and moved to a list of non-psychiatric long-term diagnoses (and moved as is, still defined by the CIM-11 F64.0 GID criteria). As demonstrated by all sources including yours.

Above, I explained the technical details only to demonstrate that the current statement ("France removed GID as a diagnosis by decree”) is not only unclear, it is also misleading. What matters is indeed the big picture: there was no depathologization of transgenderedness in France in 2010, unlike the 1st part of the current sentence suggests.

Something that may convey what happened is: [not sure the English is correct]

In 2010, France declared “transsexualism” (still defined by the CIM-10 criteria) a non-psychiatric condition; this made the headlines as a depathologization, but according to French trans rights organizations, beyond the impact of the announcement itself, nothing changed

Are 35 words on this topic considered undue? --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

PS There are discussions (in French) of these 2010 events here and here (both papers in open access) and the paper by Alessandrin in here and a complete chapter in this book --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So we are fine with the above (bold) quote? Is it short/clear enough? --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody care? --08:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisiscrazy (talk • contribs)

It's undue, because it's about the length that the entire France section should be, but it only covers this one event. Better would be just summarize the current state of affairs, without any mention of that act at all, since it just isn't important enough. Like the Emperor said to Mozart regarding his opera, "too many notes". Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2018

Please remove or move the following line as it is solely meant as a way to harass trans people

" Ray Blanchard developed a taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism that proposes two distinct etiologies for androphilic and gynephilic individuals that has become highly controversial,"

Ray Blanchard is a man with a personal and religious motivation regarding transgender people. His "taxonomy" has been debunked several times over, the most of which was done by the research of Moser (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20582803 among others). His premise is completely illogical and the only support he recieves is from those who wish to push a personal agenda and infest politics into scientific and academic circles (similar to the whole "creationist" thing when they tried to force science teachers to teach the creation myth)

His premise relies on outdated data as well as completely ignoring any data that doesn't suit him, denying trans people agency, and heavily relies on straight calling trans people liars if their experience doesn't match his theory. And btw, his theory is summarized as "Trans women have a sexual fetish for imagining themselves as women which motivates their transition." (he even outright said this doesn't apply to trans men for no reason other than his personal belief that trans men aren't really real and "he just included them to appease feminists"... I'm not making this up.)

His theory was tested by Moser and failed horribly for consistency. It then failed again when it was found that over 90% of ciswomen would be diagnosed as autogynophelic. In most academic and scientific circles he is outright dismissed and there is no controversy about that at all. The only controversy comes from people who are neither medical proffesionals or transgender and wish to push anti-trans rhetoric.

At the very least, anything involving Ray Blanchard should be moved out of the "science" section as it is very much no longer considered to be a scientific pursuit by any organization with relevance, competance, or authority. He is taken as seriously in the medical field as phrenology. His constant zealous and fanatical rants regarding transgender people from his own mouth on his social media pages should also indicate his intentions and credibility on the subject. 2601:8D:602:A110:85F5:5E1C:4917:4BCE (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Although I'm not doubting what you've said, I'd like to see one or more reliable sources to support some of your claims. That said, I'm tempted to remove the contested wording as unreferenced. Pinging Kaldari, who added it just under two years ago. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I know enough about this topic to say that the sentence about Blanchard is basically accurate, if oversimplified, and merely needs a reference. I'm neutral about whether to leave it and tag it {{cn}}, or remove it until sourced. If the latter, it's an important enough subject with regard to this article, that it should be restored after a source is found. Blanchard's views are controversial, without a doubt, but he's a serious researcher and has publications and sufficient articles about his publications that this can be reliably sourced. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As the responses above indicate, this is a subject that requires a consensus among interested editors to be created. Edits such as this are outside the boundaries of a simple edit request. This request is also complicated by the fact that much of the section which contains the objected-to text is imported from Causes of transsexuality. I suggest the IP user may want to create a Request for Comments on this page with a link to Talk:causes of transsexuality to assess the status of this research. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Abuse of idea

Under "Legal" I have not found the abuse section, in prisons etc. Read cases here:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/men-are-saying-theyre-women-to-get-cushier-prison-sentences...and-female-pr

Typing it on a mobile so cannot add quickly myself. Zezen (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018

This entry does not include any substantial references to transgender experiences in a digital world, although digital technologies have fundementally altered trans people's lives. Currently, the section "further reading" suggests only a few psychological/policy texts. I suggest adding the following texts to the list in order to provide readers with minimal texts regarding the impact of the digital era on trans people:

1. The book "Gender Circuits: Bodies and Identities in a Technological Age" by Eve Shapiro (ISBN: 0415996961, link: https://www.amazon.com/Gender-Circuits-Identities-Technological-Sociology/dp/0415996961). 2. The article "Living the VirtuReal: Negotiating Transgender Identity in Cyberspace" by AviMarciano (doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12081, link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcc4.12081) 3. The article "‘Trans’ cending Barriers: Transgender Organizing on the Internet" (doi: 10.1300/J041v16n03_11, link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J041v16n03_11). GadEfron (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: One of these items is 8 years old which I'm afraid seems ancient in today's world where knowledge of this subject is increasing so much more quickly. Another one of these items is behind a paywall, and the third item focuses specifically on examples found within an Israeli transgender community, observations which while still being applicable in a broader sense, still seems restrictive. I think different publications would work better here.  Spintendo  07:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Desistance and controversy

Regarding these edits to the #Coming out section: There has always been a high percentage of kids "identified as transgender" who "desist" (decide later they are not transgender). Many of them grow up as well-adjusted gay kids, and were never trans to begin with, just misidentified as such. If a study categorizes them as transgender based on cross-gender clothing, toy preferences, or other expression or behavior, and recognized as gay later when they've figured it out, they're categorized as a "desistor", when both are wrong. Just because you're gender non-conforming, doesn't mean you're trans. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, the debunked studies often cited as suggesting a "high percentage" of "desistors" generally did not distinguish trans people (the topic of this article) from gender-non-conforming ones (off-topic, making the use of such studies here inappropriate and synth-y), among other problems. In recent studies specifically of trans kids, desistance is generally very low (and mostly due to external hostility). I agree with your revert of those edits. -sche (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What recent studies are you referring to, -sche? And are they WP:MEDRS-compliant? In the case of recent studies, I always consider WP:Recentism and how those studies hold up to the general literature per WP:Due weight. I don't see that the piece that was reverted needs to be there, but it's still the case that the general literature on children with gender dysphoria states that the vast majority of these children cease to want to be the other sex by puberty. It seems you are stating that most of the children in the past studies weren't actually transgender. But many of these children wanted to be the opposite sex and stated that they felt like the opposite sex, before eventually "growing out of" their desire to be the opposite sex. So, in that sense, they were transgender. It wasn't always simply the case of an effeminate boy or a masculine girl, and them being mischaracterized as transgender. That stated, I understand the view that "desistors" weren't truly transgender to begin with since the children and parents are advised to wait until puberty or adolescence to see if the desire to transition remains. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

perspective of others and the words genuine & authentic

Is there a better formulation of this important sentence ...

The degree to which individuals feel genuine, authentic, and comfortable within their external appearance and accept their genuine identity has been called transgender congruence.

• Another factor in congruence is also comfort with how others perceive ones gender identity
• genuine & authentic are virtually synonyms and maybe a little nebulous here, perhaps sincere and accurate are stronger words and convey the meaning better ie. their appearance conveys a sincere and accurate representation of their gender identity. ?

Unibond (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Genuine" and "authentic" are the words the (apparently seminal) source we cite uses, in outlining transgender congruence as the degree to which "individuals feel genuine, authentic, and comfortable with their gender identity and external appearance". (And that source is from 2012, and the wording was only added to our article sometime after January 2013, AFAICT, so this doesn't seem to be a case of the original source copying us, though at least one subsequent non-academic book seems like it may be copying us.) In academic journals—using Google Scholar and plain Google to quickly search through articles that mention "transgender congruence" and then any of of the four adjectives we're discussing—and in other references, as well as in lay speech, "authentic" seems to be the most common word, with "genuine" close behind, though "sincere" does see some use. I haven't seen any reason to prefer "sincere" or "accurate", or to think they're any less nebulous. -sche (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My thinking is that the terms genuine and authentic are judgements made externally and usually on objects not people. Sincerity is an individual expression of a person not a judgement passed on that person. Note, I am not contesting your position I am happy for the article to remain as is. Unibond (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

point readers to a wide interpretation of "transgender"

A little while ago I added a sentence with links, to suggest the limitations of this article and point readers elsewhere, giving them terms they might not have known. Under the proposed definition of "cross-dresser" which includes A but excludes B and C, I added:

(It also excludes those people who, throughout history, adopted a gender disguise in order to do things forbidden to their sex, for example attending higher education or going to war.)

This was removed with the comment "And yet that Wikipedia article is titled List of wartime cross-dressers. Needs better implementation if this is to stay." I'm not fussed about the wording, but I think we do readers (who may know almost nothing about the subject before coming to this article) a disservice if we don't delineate these different categories. Transgender is an umbrella term, and as such should link out as much as possible, to be as clear as we can be on what is and is not included in the meaning. I'd like to reinstate some version of this. Any thoughts? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing. What you added was unsourced, and those people you excluded as cross-dressers are listed as cross-dressers in the List of wartime cross-dressers article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting the Wachowskis

How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women? "The Wachowskis" or "The Wachowski Brothers"? You can comment or vote here:

Talk:The_Matrix_(franchise)#Request_for_Comment_-_Crediting_The_Wachowskis

Any input would be greatly appreciated! WanderingWanda (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

New gender identity page

A new gender identity subpage has been added to the Manual of Style:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity (shortcut: MOS:IDINFO).

Discussion about this new section, and about Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines in general, is taking place on its talk page:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

A discussion on whether Cis and Trans should redirect to Cisgender and Transgender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans#Requested_move_4_May_2019

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested Move: Genderqueer → Non-binary

Hi everyone! Your considered input is requested here:

Talk:Genderqueer#Requested_move_1_May_2019

This is a contentious discussion that could really use more participation. Anyone with expertise in gender identity topics or with good conflict resolution skills are especially encouraged to particpate. Thank you! WanderingWanda (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Transsexual" sentence at the top of the article is extremely simplistic and contradictory

The definition and history of the word "transsexual" and its relationship to "transgender" is long and convoluted, and the sentence "transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another" is an absurd oversimplification. It's contradicted multiple times in the article as well as the transsexual article itself. I suggest its deletion.

I added a Citation Needed to it, but I think it should be taken out altogether, as multiple sources can be cited both for it and against it, based on many different definitions.

In my personal experience, I've found that every trans person I've met has understood "transsexual" to simply be an outdated and archaic synonym for "transgender", but obviously that's not relevant to the article's content.

Trebuchette (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That transsexual is considered outdated and/or is rejected by many transgender people today is, as you know, covered in the "Transsexual and its relationship to transgender" section. And it's covered in the "Relationship of transsexual to transgender" section in the Transsexual article. Both articles also note that there are transgender people who still use and prefer the term transsexual. In this case, and as noted by medical sources, the term refers to transgender people who have undergone sex reassignment therapy, and (according to some sources) especially those who have undergone sex reassignment surgery as part of that therapy. Per WP:Lead, which notes that the lead is meant to summarize the article, this is something that should be mentioned in the lead, whether we tweak the sentence or not. Both the Transgender and Transsexual articles are also better off with the sections about the terms' relationship to each other. I don't see that noting how the term transsexual is sometimes used is contradictory. And the lead does state "sometimes called." Terms obviously are not always used consistently. Some transgender people embrace the term transvestite, while many or most other transgender people do not. It doesn't negate the fact that transvestite is commonly considered a derogatory and outdated term today. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Trebuchette:Chiming in to agree with Flyer. Want to add though you may be correct that the sentence "transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another" is oversimplifying things. The issue is, you are using your own personal experience to explain why it is an oversimplification. Wikipedia editors are mainly supposed to use reliable secondary sources to determine how wikipedia articles should be written. You can read more about what secondary sources are at WP:RS. Hope that's helpful and you enjoy editing wikipedia. Rab V (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

PS you mentioned multiple sources could contradict the statement you were concerned; if they look like reliable secondary sources, maybe link and quote them in this discussion and we could work on it. Rab V (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The sentence currently states, "Some transgender people identify as transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another." And it's sourced. It focuses on identity rather than on transgender people sometimes being called transsexual, which is probably better considering that the term transsexual isn't as widespread today as it used to be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the sentence be "Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual"?  The current sentence sounds like "some transgender people desire medical transition, and those people identify as transsexual." Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement. I'd also suggest a slight tweak. The quotes in the current sources in the lede aren't very helpful with this, so I looked at the transsexual section. In that sourced content, a distinction is being made between sex and gender: "Distinctions between the terms transgender and transsexual are commonly based on distinctions between gender (psychological, social) and sex (physical).[38][39]" The current sentence in the lede reads:

Some transgender people identify as transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another.

I think this might work better:

Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one gender to another may identify as transsexual.

It's your suggestion, Kolya Butternut, but with "gender" and "may". This would also put it in alignment with the lede of the transsexual article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan I would think "sex" would be more appropriate than "gender" in your suggestion. It seems straightforward to me that transsexuals are changing their physical sex; this is my interpretation of the articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Should remain as "sex" since the medical assistance is for a change in sexual characteristics. Given that "gender" is often taken as a reference to one's gender identity or gender role, I don't think it should be used for the sentence in question. They are not seeking medical assistance because of a change in gender identity. It's not about that. It's about a change in physical appearance/gender presentation to match their gender identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I like the suggested tweak of Kolya Butternut and CorbieVreccan's suggestion, hence:

Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another may identify as transsexual.

Funcrunch (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is about sex, not gender. Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that "may" is needed; it's why I removed it before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed "may". I was thinking the same thing but I wasn't sure if it mattered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm confused why the lead of Transsexual states they desire to permanently transition to the gender with which they identify instead of sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It states, "Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with, or not culturally associated with, their assigned sex, and desire to permanently transition to the gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance (including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapies) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender."

I don't see an issue with that paragraph since gender transition is about "the process of changing one's gender presentation and/or sex characteristics to accord with one's internal sense of gender identity – the idea of what it means to be a man or a woman." The reason we wanted to focus on "sex" in the lead of the Transgender article is because that aforementioned part is about altering one's sexual characteristics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I interpret a transsexual person to be someone who seeks medical assistance to transition, but the lead suggests that transsexual people only "usually" seek medical assistance, and implies that some transsexual people may only transition to a different gender role. I understand that "gender transitioning" doesn't necessarily involve medical assistance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Some transsexual people do not seek medical assistance because, although they still desire it, they are unable to access it for financial or other reasons. Funcrunch (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I had seen that.  I understand "seek" to mean "attempt or desire to obtain".  It sounds incorrect to say "transsexual people only 'usually' desire to obtain medical assistance", which is how the wording can be interpreted. Maybe change to:

Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with, or not culturally associated with, their assigned sex, and desire to permanently transition their sex characteristics by obtaining medical assistance (including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapies) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender.

. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"Transition[ing] their sex characteristics" isn't how the matter is ever described. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Right. I was trying to keep the word "transition" in the lead, but that's not necessary, and it is discussed in the body. That clause could be changed to "and have permanently changed - or desire to change - their sex characteristics...."[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Transgender for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Transgender is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transgender until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision due to Citation Overkill and cleanup in the lead?

I did a general style and grammar cleanup on the lead today, removing redunancy and unsourced POV claims, syncing the text to actually match the citations, and adding one citation (Leslie Feinberg).

I got a notice the entire thing had been reverted with the notice Citation Overkill and that by moving an unrelated line to a separate paragraph, the heading was now too long.

I'd love some guidance here. The lead as it stands is a hot mess. I've done extensive editing of other pages with the same level of mess, and this time the usual "edit boldly" seems to be an issue?

Zentomologist (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Zentomologist, except perhaps for changing "Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers.", which I changed with this edit, I don't see that your versions of the lead were an improvement. I reverted you twice now, including here, because, for one, this article is not about the term; it is about the concept. See WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially its WP:ISAWORDFOR and WP:WORDISSUBJECT sections. Yes, we go into the term aspect of "transgender" in the lead, but we don't begin by framing "transgender" as a term. Secondly, what does "In addition to people who are exclusively male or female" mean? Because of the issues with the distinction between sex and gender, and that most of the general public does not recognize "assigned sex," the wording "in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women)" is more accurate and clearer. It is also important to mention trans men and trans women since they are who the vast majority of the transgender literature focuses on, despite transgender also being an umbrella term. As for "Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.", it's not just about preferring the term. They also identify as transsexual. So if you want "prefer" there as well, I would word it as "Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual and prefer the term transsexual to transgender."

As for no one having objected to your extensive editing at other articles, your contribution history shows that you don't edit much, at least under your Zentomologist account; so maybe that is why. But it is the case that editors' edits won't always be accepted. Surely, you've been reverted before, whether or not you know about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As for this lower in the article, "genderqueer" was not needed since "non-binary" is there. And, yes, they mean the same thing in the vast majority of reliable sources. I also pointed to WP:Slash. I'm not sure what you mean by "and that by moving an unrelated line to a separate paragraph, the heading was now too long." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn, I'm aware it's about the concept. What I've been attempting to clear up is the writing. "In addition to people who are exclusively male or female" means "men" and "women". The article itself is not solely about "gender identity"; it's about (as multiple sources which are not ones I added state) both gender identity and gender behavior. Using "trans men" and "trans women" works well, but as the definition of them has already been stated, I'd suggest this version "In addition to trans men and trans women" as being even clearer and more concise. The issue with "Some transgender people identity is transsexual" is that the ones that do don't seem to consider themselves transgender. It may be clearer to eliminate that from the lead and leave it to the section that addresses the issue?

Certainly, I've been reverted before, as every editor has. But generally not without explanation or lack of clarity. And in that vein, what is the point of reverting to include unneeded commas and "However" (an editor's nightmare; writers love it, but it should be used with subordinate clauses, not as the start of a sentence.)

Which cites are you looking at that show "genderqueer" as a synonym for "non-binary"? IME that's a non-standard usage (but usage changes and I'm always interested in seeing the shifts). WRT moving an unrelated line: the line about some people preferring transsexual to transgender is an exception to the main explanation of the concept; grammatically, exceptions are generally listed separately. Zentomologist (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Your "In addition to people who are exclusively male or female" text meaning "men" and "women" is not clear. I've noted why. Even if readers were to take it to mean "men" and "women," it's not clear on whether it's about cisgender men and women or transgender men and women. The original "in addition to" text is about trans men and trans women. You speak of behavior, but that line is not about cross-dressers or androgynous people, or the like. I don't see anything wrong with the lead making it clear to readers that trans men and trans women are people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex. And to repeat, the vast majority of the transgender literature is about trans men and trans women. When sources or people state "transgender," they usually are not talking about cross-dressers, androgynous people, or even non-binary people.

As for transsexual people who don't consider themselves transgender, they are still considered transgender in the literature, though, especially with "transsexual" being used less and less these days (except for some medical aspects, including causes of transsexuality material). We could change "Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual." to "Some people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual and prefer the term transsexual to transgender." But the original is clearer about these people also being under the transgender umbrella. Per WP:Lead, the transsexual aspect should remain in the lead since it's a significant aspect of the article.

As for which cites I'm looking at that show "non-binary" is a synonym for "genderqueer"? The type of sources currently listed at Talk:Non-binary gender. Yeah, that's a lot of discussion to wade through, but the sources (including ones I provided in the Survey section) are there. The sources are easily found by Googling.

-sche worked on the lead more than I did, and I remember that it was -sche who crafted the "Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers." piece. So maybe -sche has something to state about your changes as well.

Mathglot might also have something to state.

As for reverting you without bringing the matter to the talk page, I, as you know, gave an explanation in my edit summary. Not every revert matter is taken to the talk page. You brought the matter to the talk page. I replied. The "however" thing is not something I feel strongly about, but there is disagreement about not beginning a sentence with "however." And I think this has also been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be WP:Pinged to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll get back to this when I can; grandkids are arriving later for a visit and no time for the computer for a while, but didn't want to leave this unanswered; bookmarked. Happy Summer! (Unless you're in the SoHes, then Happy Winter!)Zentomologist (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Zentomologist: I would have reverted your recent edits as well, as Flyer has. I see no reason to go into great detail point by point about this at present, especially if you're going to be gone a good part of the summer. However, a few general thoughts:

• Echoing what Flyer alluded to, you've been an editor for over ten years, but have fewer than 300 total edits and only a dozen since Jan. 2018. You have never edited a gender-related article before, or afaict, in any controversial area of the encyclopedia. Some topic areas of the encyclopedia are more controversial than others, and this is definitely one of them. Pretty much any change you make, from a comma on up is going to be carefully scrutinized.
• You said,

  I've done extensive editing of other pages with the same level of mess, and this time the usual "edit boldly" seems to be an issue?

• Bold editing is not the issue; you are welcome to edit boldly. Here, as anywhere, WP:BRD applies, and given the controversial nature of the topic, reverts may be common so don't be surprised when they happen, and be prepared to back up everything you do as an improvement to the article in some way.
• It's a good idea in any article to familiarize yourself with current and past Talk page discussions, especially so if it's your first foray into the article. In controversial areas, this is even more important. Long, or heated discussions may have occurred in the past involving a consensus of editors resulting in specific, compromise wording ending up in the article. It's worth looking through the Talk page as well as the archives of past discussions (list: no archives yet (create)) before editing the article. You may be inadvertently stepping on wording that was hammered out with great difficulty. That doesn't mean any part of the article is inviolate; consensus changes, and your changes are as welcome as anybody else's; but you should at least be aware of its history, so you are aware how your changes may be viewed.
• Many new editors make the mistake of heading straight to the lead, and start editing. This is often not the right approach, since the lead is a summary of the article, and the order of editing should generally be 1) change the body, and then 2) adjust the lead accordingly. (Naturally, if the changes are merely points of grammar or style that don't change the meaning, this wouldn't apply.) See MOS:INTRO, MOS:LEADNO, WP:CITELEAD and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY for further info.

I haven't responded to any of your specific points, but after your summer break or whenever you decide to edit, I'm happy to reply more in detail. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wording of Woman article's lead

A conversation which may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Talk:Woman#Proposed_edits_to_lede

WanderingWanda (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There is now an RfC about this: Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead

Two distinct questions here:
Is there a need to discuss gender identity or the gender/sex distinction in the lead of this article?
--and--
Does the current lead spend undue length discussing transgender and intersex women?

WanderingWanda (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Misleading data presentation under Population figures - UK

This section currently states: "A 2011 survey conducted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK found that of 98 respondents 7% identified as a transgender man, 8% as a transgender woman, 8% as a transsexual, 7% as gender variant, and 17% as a cross-dresser or transvestite." Reading the study provides a different story: in fact, 10 026 people answered the survey, and only those who stated they had gone through or intended to go through any part of a process to change the sex they were described as at birth to the gender they identified with were asked the question mentioned in the quote. I believe the quote, as it stands, risks being misleading towards people uninformed on transgender issues (it implies a whopping 47% of the population identifies as one of those groups) or simply being uninformative to the better informed (as in my case: it is possible to tell information is missing at a glance, but that makes the study's usefulness nil).

I believe the section could be improved by putting the data into context. For example: "A 2011 survey conducted by (...) found that of 10 026 respondents, 100 'stated that they had gone through any part of a process (including thoughts or actions) to change their gender from that which they were described as at birth'. 98 answered a follow-up question on what they identified as, showing that (...)". This formulation would both provide better context for the data currently in place and add data that is useful in its own right (i.e. that 1% of people had taken steps to change the gender they had been assigned at birth). 70.83.7.127 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Mathieu H. L.

1965 and 1984 dates

Just noting here about the sources that have recently appeared for the usage of the term, and what people have written based on them. "By 1984, the concept of a "transgender community" had developed, in which transgender was used as an umbrella term.[26]" I have no interest in arguing over this, but finding a usage does not equal community usage. This also goes for having found someone using the word in 1965. The term transgender didn't really see popular usage in the LGBT/gender nonconforming/queer communities until the 1990s, and even then, usage was sparse (with older, more specific terms still being preferred). Many who are now retroactively considered trans activists didn't adopt the term until well into the 2000's. I don't really have the time or energy to argue this, but I felt someone should say something. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important to document published, historical usage, but that we need to distinguish between appearances of the word in writings and actual community usage. Most of what is documented in these early instances seem to be theorizing on the part of the writers. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The 1984 citation is not usable - it's cited as a journal article, but it's actually a blog post that quotes the article, without sufficient publication data for verification. The link to the original is dead. I'll see if I can find it, but right now, this is the actual cite: <ref name="Rawson">{{cite journal |last=Rawson |first=K. J. |last2=Williams |first2=Cristan |title=Transgender: The Rhetorical Landscape of a term |journal=Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society |volume=3 |issue=2 |date=2014 |url=http://www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-3/transgender-the-rhetorical-landscape-of-a-term/ |access-date=2017-05-18 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515040154/http://www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-3/transgender-the-rhetorical-landscape-of-a-term/ |archivedate=2017-05-15 |df= }}</ref> - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Without wading into the substantive issue, the citation in question is also given as this - Peo, Roger E. “The ‘Origins’ and ‘Cures’ for Transgender Behavior.” The TV-TS Tapestry 42 (1984): 40–41. Print - which seems perfectly valid. We don't actually have to see the citation online as a way of fact-checking the article making the claim; that isn't the way WP works. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there are some overlapping issues here. The concept of the people described by the word 'transgender', having a community, long predates the 90s. There is no real need to split hairs over when the phrase "transgender community" first appeared in print. There are probably secondary sources documenting the history of the adoption of "transgender." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been community all along, yes, but not everyone being written about in the different sources here are the same communities. I think adding secondary sources would help with this a great deal. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)