Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Peer review/Transgender

Transgender

Currently WP:LGBT's monthly collaboration. We have a dream that eventually every collaboration will result in an FA. Tips as to how to get there in this particular case would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

imho:

Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.
"Origins" can probably be expanded.
This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").
"Many people whom this article would define as transgender reject the term altogether"
The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".
The article seems to get off topic when discussing transsexualism, cross dressing, drag, transvestic fetishism, without tying them back to transgender.
The section "Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures" shouldn't be a bulleted list. Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.
Weasel words are used in numerous places.
I think clearly differentiating between sex and gender and transgender and transsexual early in the article would be helpful.
Obviously need to cite sources.

-- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. :-) My take on the article:

Get refs for the citation needed tags (obviously).

Origins section looks okay. Explains pretty good the difference with transsexual. Perhaps last paragraph ('More recently...') could be expanded/cleared up a bit?

Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point. Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).

The transsexual section is a bit long, isn't it? I mean, there's a link to the main article. And it hasn't got a single ref.

I agree with Ashlux about the article seeming to go off-topic when discussing cross-dresser, drag, genderqueer...

Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.

Kudos for the Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures section. Needs work (and refs), but it's a very good idea.

That's it for now. :-) Hope it helps. Raystorm 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knock knock? Is this PR still active? Raystorm 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question :-) -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To Do" list

Point	Made by	Status
Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).	Raystorm	Done Editwikipediausername 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously need to cite sources.	Ashlux	Doing... Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel words are used in numerous places.	Ashlux	Doing... Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.	Ashlux	Doing... Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.	Ashlux	N I'm not sure this is doable. There is an enormous number of transgender expressions throughout the world and human history. The Two-Spirit article tried to list them all and came up with a list that was way longer than the original article: so much so, in fact, they had to transwiki it here. The proposed article "History of transgender" would be about as big as, um, this article. Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").	Ashlux	N I'm not sure this can be fixed. I've dealt with this as best I can by moving bits to new sections and copyediting, but further reduction would be difficult without removing references to TS/CD/TV/AD/GQ/CG/DK/DQ/TVF/IS's altogether, which would gut the article. Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point.	Raystorm	see above
I agree with Ashlux about the article seeming to go off-topic when discussing cross-dresser, drag, genderqueer...	Raystorm	see above
"Many people whom this article would define as transgender reject the term altogether"	Ashlux	Done
The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".	Ashlux	Done
The section "Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures" shouldn't be a bulleted list.	Ashlux	Done
Kudos for the Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures section. Needs work (and refs), but it's a very good idea.	Raystorm	Done
I think clearly differentiating between sex and gender and transgender and transsexual early in the article would be helpful.	Ashlux	Done...well, done-ish. The TG/TS differentiation is there, but towards the bottom as it turned out.
In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about?	Ashlux	Done
Get refs for the citation needed tags (obviously).	Raystorm	Done
The transsexual section is a bit long, isn't it? I mean, there's a link to the main article. And it hasn't got a single ref.	Raystorm	Done
Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.	Raystorm	Done...well, done-ish. The TG/SO differentiation is currently point 4 in a list of 11
"Origins" can probably be expanded.	Ashlux	Done

Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]