Talk:Transgender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Featured articles in other languages has identified Transgender as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Removed old talk to /Archive_01. Includes all unsigned comments and of course YATVT (Yet another Transgender versus Transsexual) debate AlexR 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Historical examples 2 More Cleanup 3 The symbol 4 Transgender Youth 5 Other transgender symbols 6 Transgenders in Iran 7 Cleanup 8 Sexual orientation of trans-people 9 Mediation 10 Transgender / Transsexual Conflict 11 Over at "Monosexuality" 12 Definitions 13 Transgender as "in between" duplicates original definition in "Origens" section 14 CD Heterosexuality 15 since I got random'ed here... 16 Is transgenderism a disorder? A mental illness? 17 This page is still really confusing... 18 IPA incorrect? 19 Should the “LGBT Click Box” be removed from the transgender article completely? 20 controversy

[edit] Historical examples

This article claims there are countless historical examples of transgendered people yet provides no reference, should the claim be removed without proof or else provide a reference?

[edit] More Cleanup

As a scholar and a professor (and a transgender person) I use this page a lot, and the grammar is driving me crazy. I've been resolving to try to help with that for a while, so here goes. Also, I added a section on "genderqueer," since that identity descriptor is used but not explained in the article. There's a lot more I would change if the article were mine, but the idea is to make it more accurate, not perfect. Anyway, --Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The symbol

Most transsexual people would not identify with the Symbol on the Article. When I had surgery, I lost the arrow and now only have a circle and a + symbol. Can an alternative please be used or is this a symbol that is in common usage in the USA for transgendered people? I would hate to think that this symbol found its way into common usage. It smacks of the dualgender ideas promulated by the UK Beaumont Society, a largely transvestite based organisation who up until relatively recently discriminated against transsexual people and who still work to another agenda. --NikkiW 16:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since you obviously do not identify as transgender, how can you possibly object to the symbol? Also, the symbol has three arms, and nobody forces you to identify with the one on the left. Also, again, do not assume this is US only. And could you please tell me why you object so much to an organisation that -- according to you, I've never heard of them, but then, I am not British -- discriminates against transsexual people, while you at the same time so obviously discriminate against non-transsexual transgender people? You want to deny them a name, an identity, and a symbol, how can non-physical discriminiation get worse than that? So you are not in a position to complain here. -- AlexR 08:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, I do not identify with the symbol but can see it has a relevance to those who see themselves as gender queer and also those still in a state of flux. If it is viewed from the basis of Alternatives, then it is perfectly valid. Perhaps last time I read it, the explanation as to why it was so designed was not visible on my reading it.

However, I strongly disagree with you that I discriminate against other people who are gender-variant. On the contrary I give support to all variants in my everyday life and stand up for all people faced with discrimination. Your assessment of me is wrong, sorry. Jumping to conclusions about me and my philosophy on how I treat all people based upon 4 paragraphs thereabouts is unfair and uncalled for. For a person who clearly contributes a great deal to Wikipedia, your agression in the above does you no favours, which is sad, because you could have so easily approached my discussion posting with something more reasoned and well mannered. The same objective would have been achieved without getting people's backs up. Perhaps it is the testosterone in you !(and I mean that jokingly !)Oh, and I never whine lol. --NikkiW 20:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added to this page a version of the symbol which has been adopted by more trans persons than any other. This is not to say that all trans persons identify with this symbol, but the objections of some does not invalidate the symbol's resonance with many. Everyone is welcome to invent and promote symbology, and those which become most widely used will become associated with their predominant use. I am sorry if some find this objectionable. The symbol does not imply that every trans person has a penis, or any other such implications. It simply seeks to popularize the idea that neither sex nor gender are simple binaries, and we are all in this together, however we may differ. --NancyN 20 March 2006

[edit] Transgender Youth

Because there are many unique issues related to transgender youths, should a section on this be included? Most noteably, Hormone replacement theropy before puberty results with mostly the desired secondary sexual charactoristics. LexieM 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. Go for it. Dave 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other transgender symbols

A number of transgender organizations use the butterfly as a symbol (tgsf.org for instance), or a variation on the yin and yang symbol (ifge.org for instance). -- Dlloyd 14:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

IFGE's symbol is not a transgender symbol, it is a symbol for IFGE. - Former IFGE director Nancy Nangeroni NancyN 20 March 2006

True (to me), IFGE's symbol doesn't look anything like a transgender symbol.
IMHO a few good “variations on the yin and yang symbol” I know of can be seen at GenderEvolve. -- ParaDox 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might be interested in
what I've done with transgender symbols.
-- ParaDox 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transgenders in Iran

Is there a source on "In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini instituted state procedures to help pay for sex-change operations in those who identified as transgender.", specifically the part about the state funding part? I see no mention in the Transsexuality in Iran article. Jaytan 10:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Look here. ntennis 12:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I really can't find any evidence to that statement. I'm checking google news and a couple major news sources and Human Rights watch's website, but I'm finding a lot of evidence to the contrary (which I expected, but wasn't entirely sure of). Anyway, a lot of the articles talk about Iran imprisoning and executing gays, transgenders, and transsexuals. If anything, I would bet that any such program would only be in place today to lure out "criminals" or, the program may have been abolished. However, I do not know. I have found no real evidence to either side. (Kiyae 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cleanup

I listed the article yesterday on Wikipedia:Cleanup#April 8,2006 with the following comment: "I tried to bring some order into that article today, and removed lots of BS and whining, but I think I worked too much on it already, this one desperately needs somebody to go through it and turn this mess into a readable article." User:Metamagician3000 already was so kind as to do some improvements, but in my opinion there should be a few cuts as well - this article cannot replace all the other articles in the WP that deal with transgender issues, and it sure looks like it tries at the moment, making it a mess. -- AlexR 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual orientation of trans-people

I'd to see the source for the following generalization:

"Although few studies have been done, transgender groups almost always report that their members are more likely to be attracted to those with the same gender identity, compared to the population as a whole. I.e., transwomen are more likely to be attracted to other women, and transmen are more likely to be attracted to other men."

My own impression of FTM's is that they're predominately attracted to lesbians. I myself am MTF, and would have to question the claim that "transwomen are more likely to be attracted to other women". In my experience, sexual orientation of MTF's varies a great deal depending on the social milieu. If I had to estimate, I'd call it about equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals, with a large number of bisexuals as well. I think there's reason to doubt the accuracy of this unattributed generalization. --LishLash 00:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right to ask for a source, and the statement is not as clear as it could be. However, my reading of the claim in the above sentence is that there are more gay/bi transmen and lesbian/bi transwomen than there are gay/bi cisgender men or women. Your observation that there are equal numbers of homo and heterosexual transwomen supports this claim — there are certainly not equal numbers of homo and heterosexual cisgender folk. The studies I've seen also tend to support this observation. Here's one suggestion for improving the sentence:

"Although few studies have been done, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that the proportion of transmen and transwomen who are homosexual or bisexual is greater than the proportion of homosexual and bisexual people in the wider population.^[1]"

Reference:

1. ^ *Clements-Nolle K., Marx R., Guzman R., and Katz M. (2001). HIV prevalence, risk behaviors, health care use, and mental health status of transgender persons: implications for public health intervention. American Journal of Public Health 91:915-921.
   *The Transgender Community Health Project report, San Francisco Department of Public Health, February 18, 1999
   *Lewins, Frank (1995). Transsexualism in Society: A Sociology of Male-to-Female Transsexuals. Melbourne: Macmillan. p. 95
   *

ntennis 04:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the intended meaning of the original passage with your rewrite. I've edited the article using your wording. --LishLash 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kindly don't use "homosexual" when refering to transpeople here -- it is too confusing, see Homosexuality and transgender. Also, what sort of transmen do you know who are predominantly attrected to lesbian women? In my experience this is the absolute minority; less so when one counts Drag Kings and similarly non-traditionals gender variant people, but still, in my experience - confirmed by others - it is about a third, one third gay, one third prefering women (and most prefering straight ones, explicitly not lesbian women) and one third won't quite make up their mind.

Also, it seems (not just) to me that you misread the sentence you are criticising -- it does not say that there are more lesbian transwoman than straight transwomen, but that there are relatively more lesbian transwoman than there are lesbian ciswomen, something you yourself state. -- AlexR 22:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

By "homosexual" I mean the transperson's partner is gay, lesbian, or queer. That seems to be the preference of the FTM's I know here in San Francisco. I think it's meaningful to distinguish between queer relationships versus straight relationships where the the transperson and/or their partner consider themselves heterosexual. For example, many MTF's who identify as women date straight men who are attracted to transwomen. Other MTF's who identify as men (who like to crossdress) date straight women. I regard both of these cases as heterosexual relationships. MTF's who identify as women and are attracted to lesbian, gay, or queer folks are homosexual. (We are definitely not straight....)

Yes, I did misinterpret the original wording, and I felt ntennis' revision was a clearer way to state it. I do agree with the claim that transfolk are generally more likely to be LGB than non-transfolk. --LishLash 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure I understand you -- you say, a relationship of a transperson is "homosexual" if the partner is gay, lesbian or queer, but that does not make any sense. One can reasonably claim (well, some claim otherwise, but let's leave those out) that a relationship between a lesbian ciswoman and a lesbian transwoman is homosexual, but one cannot, especially if one declares that kind of relationship as homosexual, claim at the same time that a relation between a lesbian woman and a transman would be equally homosexual. Especially not if a relationship of the same transman and a gay man would equally be called homosexual. If the word is indeed used somewhere like that, then it should be pointed out that this is a special usage in one (or a few) communities, but you can't rewrite parts of the artikle in that utterly nonsensical way. (Well, unless that would some day indeed become the predominant usage -- A day I hope will never come!) You can call such relationships gay, lesbian, or queer - but you cannot call them all "homosexual". Especially not here, where we expect readers from all walks of life, not just those versed in what is allegedly the current usage among transpeople in San Francisco, USA. I wonder, did you read homosexuality and transgender?

As you point out yourself, what exactly constitutes same-(=homo) or different-(hetero)-ness is so debatable, that it is hardly possible to use the terms in a meaningfull way. What I don't understand are your references to transmen - first you state "My own impression of FTM's is that they're predominately attracted to lesbians." which is in my experience simply wrong, and then "By "homosexual" I mean the transperson's partner is gay, lesbian, or queer. That seems to be the preference of the FTM's I know here in San Francisco." which is a completely different statement -- and also one that might be true in San Francisco, but not necessarily in the rest of the world -- especially where the question of lesbian partners are concerned, as I already pointed out yesterday.

Also, I don't think one can distinguish relationships just between "queer" and "straight" -- not all gay or lesbian people would call themselfes queer. I think we should stick with people's self-identification here, and that is usually lesbian, gay, queer or straight. Androphiliac and gynophiliac are usefull, too, but homosexual and heterosexual is not, especially not specific uses in one particular community presented as generally accepted usages. -- AlexR 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's realistic to ask people to avoid using "homosexual" and "heterosexual" to describe tranfolks' relationships. People use these terms because in real life, transpeople do involve themselves in these types of relationships. Unlike heterosexuals and LGB folks, each of whom tend to form self-sufficient social and sexual comumunities, us T's aren't mainly attracted to each other. We tend to integrate ourselves into other peoples' social groups that welcome our presence. That's why the social context of a transperson's relationship is important in understanding its sexual orientation.

Many lesbian women do have relationships with FTM's. (See Craigslist "Women Seeking Women" for details.) FTM's who relate to lesbians may identify as butch dykes, genderqueer, or as men, and this self-identification can evolve over time. What counts is the cultural context in which the relationship develops. When a lesbian is involved with an FTM who doesn't explicitly identify as a man, it's clearly a lesbian or queer relationship. FTM's who socialize in lesbian communities don't go stealth as men - they're out as FTM's. Conversely, an FTM who identifies as a man, socializes in stealth in straight society and dates women, is pursuing a heterosexual relationship, just as other straight men do.

As for the terminology we use in a Wikipedia article, I think it's preferable to clarify words that are in common use rather than resort to esoteric terms that are rarely seen outside academic contexts. Words like "ciswoman", "androphilic", and "gynephilic" are rarely, if ever, heard in real life conversation and I think they raise more questions than they answer. In practice, most people interested in transgender topics know what "queer" and "straight" mean, but unfortunately, these terms aren't completely neutral as they're still regarded as somewhat confrontational. For Wikipedia, the neutrality of "homosexual" (i.e. queer or LGB) and "heterosexual" (i.e. straight) seems appropriate, just as we prefer to write "penis" and "vagina" rather than vernacular terms like "cock" and "pussy".

As we're both well aware, sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct aspects of an individual. Transpeople inherently cross traditional conventions but we don't play completely outside the ballpark. I'll read through the homosexuality and transgender article, and as it's a lengthy digression, I'll put comments under its discussion page. --LishLash 20:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am all for using well-known words, but I, and especially here, in an encyclopedia, I am even more for using correct and unambiguous words, and your use of "homosexual" is everything but. I also did not ask "people" to avoid those words, I asked that those words are not used in the Wikipedia, because they are even in the well-known uses confusing (the well-know uses contradicting each other). They are even more so if somebody starts using them in a third, new, and utterly confusing way. Also, once more, the Wikipedia, even the English one, is not just written for Westcoast US citizens (most of which would not be able to follow your use, either, I dare say). If therefore we need to use less well-known, but more precise words, then so be it - here, the explanation is only one click away. So, if you want to use "homosexual" in that odd way on your webpage, feel free. (Just don't be too surprised if people not from San Francisco don't understand what you mean.) Here however we have to explain a very complex matter to people who are not particularly knowledgeable about that subject, and it hardly seems to serve that purpose if we confuse them instead.

Oh, and please don't be so patronising about transpeople to me - I am not only a transman myself, I have also worked in trans-support and trans-politics for years. -- AlexR 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if something (?) I said sounded patronizing, as that was certainly not my intent. Again, I think it's unrealistic to exclude words from Wikipedia that are in common use (like "homosexual") and instead promote obscure non-words (like "ciswomen"). Your implication that characterizing gender-based relationships as homosexual is a usage confined to San Francisco is simply unfounded. --LishLash 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not exclude that word from the Wikipedia, but we should exclude it where it is ambiguous (or rather, amtriguous), as it is when refering to transpeople. Also, what is a "gender"-based relationship, please? And as for San Francisco, you were the one that claimed this was, as far as you know, the usage there. (" That seems to be the preference of the FTM's I know here in San Francisco.") I sure have not heard it elsewhere. And even if it were used elsewhere, too, it does not belong here (because it is ambigous), unless it becomes so widespread that we don't have to explain that particular usage any more. Which I doubt will ever be the case. I also must say that I don't feel there is anything to be gained by continuing this conversation - we just keep repeating ourselfes here. Should you edit any articles accordingly, I will look for formal outside intervention. Otherwise, unless you come up with new arguments, I think it is EOD for me. -- AlexR 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely we can be clear, accurate and use accessible language. What about "non-trans woman" instead of ciswoman and "attracted to women" instead of "gynephile"? ntennis 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Attracted to women" is fine, I merely wanted to point out that there are far less problematic words than homosexual -- this, after all, is a 3-dimensional concept: You have to define the sex/gender of both partners and decide whether they are same or different. "Attracted to men"/androphiliac has the great advantage of being one-dimensional, refering only to the gender of the persons one is attracted to.

However, non-trans woman is, I'm affraid, problematic. First, it is not particularly polite to refer to people by what they are not, second, there is a school of thought that maintains that after one has 'completely' transitioned, one is also not trans anymore. (I won't comment on that.) This has also already been discussed to death, I think one was on Talk:List of transgendered people. Explanations of less known words in the Wikipedia is just one click away, so why not use them where they make a lot more sense then every alternative? -- AlexR 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken about people with a trangender "history", although the wikipedia transgender article does define it as "non-identification with ... the gender one was assigned at birth." Personally, I'm OK with cisgender (I voted to keep it when the article was up for deletion), but I recognise that the term is in extremely marginal use. The transgender/cisgender taxonomy also appears to exclude non-trans intersex people, for whom similar definitional problems can arise with terms like homo and heterosexual. I guess the English language needs an overhaul! As for defining a group by what they're not, it seems to be a reasonably common practice when a dominant group realises they are not universal. Here in Australia, for example, the phrase "non-indigenous" (person) is widespread — and, I should add, doesn't come across as rude. ntennis 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the article says so about being (and remaining) trans, but given the way some people see those things, one should be careful. We just had a war over that on de:. You know, "proper transsexuals" against the rest of the world, and that was part of the battlefield.

As for intersex people, no, it does not exclude them - they are either satisfied with the gender they were assigned at birth, then they are cisgender, or not, then they are transgender. This is of course not meant to impose either term on them instead of intersexual, but merely explaining how this particular pair of words applies. And with regard to intersex people, about everything is very complicated, because the experience of a person with Klinefelter's who is female-identified and one that has been butchered as an infant and now fights to live in a female gender role are not exactly very similar.

As for cisgender, well, maybe some people are not offended, but then, we don't define heterosexual people (let's just think cisgender people here) as non-homosexual, either, for example. Of course, we can use non-transgender, but again, you are bound to have transsexual people who consider themselfes not to be transgender (yes, I know how much sense that makes) claiming they are non-transgender, too. More relevant here, though, I think is that we can use precise words, even if they are not yet that widely used, because the explanation is just one click away. After all, we are an encyclopedia, we even have a lot of article titles that you can bet are not exactly widely used, either ;-) -- AlexR 09:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the three of us agree about the prevalence of various sexual orientations among transpeople, it's just a bit tricky to find the right way to describe it in the article. I'm happy to leave the word cisgender in the article as you (Alex) seem to feel strongly about it. However, I'll try to clarify what I meant about intersexuality — let's say someone has a mild form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (the most common form of intersexuality), has XX sex chromosomes and is assigned a female gender at birth. As she grows up, her body goes through "virilization" due to androgen effects, and she comes to identify as neither male nor female but intersex (I've met someone with exactly this history). She doesn't consider herself transgender, but nor is she "the gender assigned at birth". Few of the things we can say about the cisgender population in general are true for such intersexuals — they often have more in common with transpeople.

Well, as I said, intersex people are generally a problem, but your example person would be transgender -- not being satisfied with the gender one was assigned at birth does not mean one has to choose the other. (That is one of the two things where transsexual is more narrow than transgender.) So if ey was assigned female gender at birth and now considers eir gender as intersex, that is another gender, hence transgender. Don't forget that not every non-intersex transperson does consider themselfes as plainly man or woman, either, so we don't even have to make an exception here. As for people not self-identifying as transgender, well, we do have the same problem with transsexual people who loath transgender (the concept, the definition, the people - everything). My solution to this problem so far has been (and yes, the article reflects that - or at least should) that when one defines transgender, one includes those (with a carveat), but does not dwell on the matter on the pages describing those terms where some people self-identify with who have a problem with transgender. That is the reason the list is called List of transgender-related topics and not List of transgender topics. And of course one does not insist describing people as "transgender" on pages describing those people specifically. [AR]

Furthermore, how do we refer to transsexuals who do not identify as transgender? They are not cisgender either, so do they just drop off the radar? Where are they in the statement about sexual orientation? They are included in the research I cited above, which we really shouldn't use if we can't agree that the data refers to transgender people. I don't think "cisgender" helps us any more in this regard than "non-transgender". I also believe "non-transgender" will be better understood by more people, and really to me does not sound rude at all.

Same thing as above - sorry, but you cannot claim to be from London, but start juming onto people when they telll you that you are from England, too. So every person who is transsexual is also transgender, but since describing them as transsexuals does include that automatically, there is no particular point in dwelling on that. This is, BTW, a bigger problem with intersexual people -- most people with an intersex condition do not feel there was any mistake with the gender they were assigned at birth, hence many of those feel insulted when people claim that intersex is a gender by itself. (And don't even ask about the parents -- they are often rabid about it.) [AR]

As for their sexual orientation, yes, yet another reason not to use "homo"- and "heterosexual". If you read about transsexual people in particular, you are bound to stumble over much scientific (well, often enough just "scientific") literature that uses those words consistenly regarding to birth sex. (Compare autogynephilia for an example, and that is a current one!). So people's self-description flatout contradicts the "scientifc" use, or, these days, still most of it, (things might be changing, but the old texts don't disappear, after all.), then, if we would use that the other way, those people who think that WIkipedia is already just a trans-pamphlet or something like that, would have a field day. I am certainly not one to avoid edit wars, but I don't think we need to provoke them -- we are getting enough of them already. [AR]

LishLash's comments have also brought up an interesting point for me. I think I can add a 4th to the 3 dimensions of homosexuality listed above: what gender your partner sees you as! ntennis 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

*chuckle* Yes, you can get really many-dimensional here - you can take about every of the biological factors, gender role, gender identity, gender presentation, and whatnot. And what you yourself consider relevant. And what your partner considers the partnership. And of course what outsiders say ... there is endless fun to be had here. Or endless edit-wars ... -- AlexR 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't want to flog a dead horse here, can I just clarify: your two objections to using "non-trans" instead of "cisgender" were that 1) it's not polite to refer to anyone as "not-something", and 2) "there is a school of thought that maintains that after one has 'completely' transitioned, one is also not trans anymore." Do we agree that this second issue is not solved by the use of the word "cisgender" any better than it is by the word "non-trans"? Are there any other other objections to the word "non-trans"? ntennis 01:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Any reason you are now so hell-bent to remove it? Why use something akward as non-trans when we have a precise word that we can use? One that defines something positively, and not negatively. As I said, if you insist on using non-trans, then kindly also start removing all instances of "heterosexual" and replace it with "non-homosexual". Which also does not make sense. As for your second reason, yes, I said something to that effect, but we do not quite agree - I have seen people claiming that they are "not transsexual any more" but I have yet to see somebody claiming they are "cisgender/sexual". I'm sorry, but regarding "cisgender/sexual" I really don't see your point. The word exists, the word is used (even if not widely yet), the word is more precise and more polite than the alternative, and we are an encyclopedia, we don't have to write on the level of a children's dictionary. And that is not just a dead horse you are beating here, that horse has already been beaten into glue and whang leather months ago. So forgive me if I don't just find this debate pointless, but also tiresome. -- 02:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't overreach, I'm hardly hell-bent (though I may be a little bent), nor am I insisting on removing anything! I already stated that I'm happy to leave the cissies alone. I just wanted to make sure that I understand your objections to "non-trans" correctly, because to me they don't hold up, and I thought I might be missing something. The discussion has not been at all pointless to me, so i appreciate your indulging me when it has been tiresome for you. Apologies to you and the horse, and please consider our dialog closed. In case you wish to champion the sensitivities of others labelled non-things, you might want to have a look at non-commissioned officer, nonconformist and non-combatant. Cheers ;) ntennis 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I over-reacted, but not only have I seen this horse beaten enough for a lifetime, I also have that habit of editing WP when I can't sleep - which does not always put me in an exactly good mood. Not your fault, the latter ;-) Maybe we just have to agree to disagree, since both of us seem other factors as predomintant - me, basically, precision, you, prefering not to use not that widely used words. I don't think those can be reconciled at the moment. Nevertheless, your examples, I am affraid, don't quite hold up to scrutiny. First, non-combatant and non-commissioned officer are military language; one that in my experience prefers combining existing words to coining new ones, even if those are available. And nonconformism is defined explicitly as something one is not, again, unlike cisgender, which is a definition of what one is. You can' t have nonconformism without some conformism, but you can have cisgender without having transgender. And second, none of those words have a prefix like "trans" which explicitly has an opposite one. The opposite of "non" is "not-non", or, usually, nothing. The opposite of trans, however, is Cis. So, apples and oranges and bananas. Cheers ;) -- AlexR 10:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for butting in here, it's hardly my place, but I would recommend that when discussing a topic as sensitive as transgenderism, when the vocabulary to describe the situations is as limited as it is here, one should either a) Use whatever descriptive terms and phrases are available to best describe the entirety of the situation, regardless of grammar, with regard really only to others feelings and such. OR b) Use the same exact words and phrases throughout the discussion so as to clarify.

Personally, I would go with option "a", simply because the vocab for describing this topic is extremely limited. I would take that to mean go with using the prefix "non" until a better option arrives. Really, I would Italic textloveItalic text to see a grand discussion (probably through wikipedia) that would come out with an entire vocabulary to use in this kind of discussion. Of course, that has to come from the transgender/transsexual community-and from nowhere else. Regardless, I hope my advice steps on noone's toes, and that this entry grows to greatness.

(PS-don't beat on the "cissies" too much, I know we're incorrigible, but still, some of us are trying to learn, you have to teach us.) (Kiyae 01:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Mediation

Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediator :), just letting you know that LishLash has requested mediation here. If people involved in the dispute could put forward their perspective I hope we can get on with resolving this little dispute and building consensus :) - FrancisTyers 16:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've read through the stuff, and it appears you only have one dispute [1]. That and a bit of assuming bad faith on both sides. User:LishLash, your comment "Is it your view that the purpose of an online encyclopedia is to provide a platform for provoking disputes with other users?" isn't particularly helpful in trying to resolve the dispute. User:AlexR please don't describe another user as "hysterical". Now we've got that out of the way, is there any serious dispute here? I mean, you both seem to be a bit tetchy but I can't for the life of me see why! Help me out here! Why not think about it for a bit while you sit down and have a nice cup of tea :) - FrancisTyers 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To put it in context, my comment quoted above was not made here, but on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. It was in response to a provocative dispute alert posted by AlexR, in which he urged other Wikipedia users to pile on me and "explain the purpose of an encyclopedia to em?" That post was soon deleted by AdelaMae who commented: "can we please try to present these disputes neutrally and politely?"

Do you think you could stick to the truth occasionally? First of all, the diff on the notice board can be seen here: [2] AdelaMae replaced (and not deleted) both our edits with a neutral summary and that comment. Which of the edits was less neutral and polite, well, let's leave that to the reader, shall we? Second, I did not ask anybody to "pile" on you, I merely thought that since you did not understand my previous attempts to explain to you that we cannot use this useage you prefer in an encyclopedia, because it is a) rare and b) confusing and c) it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to promote uses (especially not rare and confusing ones) (see above), maybe somebody else could explain it better to you. [AR]

So to you it's untruthful (i.e. lying) when I state verifiable facts without applying the degree of spin that you'd prefer? I'm quite happy to leave it to the reader to decide who's accusations are more provocative in this dispute.--LishLash 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm having trouble qualifying either of your actions as more provocative than the other. - FrancisTyers 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If it was me who AlexR described as "hysterical", it escaped my notice. Could you kindly cite the reference for me? --LishLash 05:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't read, can you? Francis never said you had called my hysteical, allegedly I did so. Which I actually did not, what I said was "Eir claim "This sounds like a threat intended to intimidate me, especially as I have expressed no intention of initiating an edit war." is at best hysterical" [3] -- and so is the claim that I had asked people to "pile" on eir. I described certain of your actions as hysterical, not your person. Which I still do, BTW. -- AlexR 08:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What fine distinctions you make in targeting your insults. Are you not aware that "hysterical" is a smear that men often hurl at women when we object to being bullied? Please note that I'm not actually calling you a bully, only using the term to characterize certain of your actions.

For ease of reference, here's the threat by AlexR that I found intimidating: "I don't feel there is anything to be gained by continuing this conversation - we just keep repeating ourselfes here. Should you edit any articles accordingly, I will look for formal outside intervention." --LishLash 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a threat and I wouldn't say it was intimidating... Probably shouldn't have used the word "intervention", but I think you are reading too much into this. If his idea of intervention was asking for an involved party to come and take a look at the dispute then I don't think that it is particularly threatening. - FrancisTyers 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transgender / Transsexual Conflict

I note, once again, that a page asserts that "all transsexuals are, by definition, transgender" despite at least a decade worth of transsexuals, primarily post-operative male-to-female transsexual women, asserting that "transgender" is not a proper umbrella term for "transsexual". I note, also, that while "Conflict" is briefly mentioned in the article, I seen no discussion of the "Conflict", nor any proper analysis of why the conflict exists, the nature of the conflict, or arguments about it. As such, this article has pretty serious POV issues since it glosses the issue "transgender" subsuming "transsexuality". I'd like to introduce some discussion of this conflict into the article, since it is a real part of transgender politics, but have this feeling that it would promptly be edited out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.116.12.83 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And if we had hordes of people from London who claim that they are insulted when also being refered to as a subset of people from England, exactly how much room does that need in an encyclopedia? However, if you can make resonably NPOV statements about this matter, make them. If you are unsure, discuss them here. Make also sure, though, that you have references when needed -- merely personal statements, which have appeared in this articles a few times, will indeed be edited out. They would be edited out of every WP article, though. You have a much better chance of being taken seriously, though, if you sign your statements, and preferably get yourself a username, too. Unsigned IP-statements are 9 out of 10 times not worth reading. -- AlexR 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over at "Monosexuality"

I'm pretty sure this paragraph from the Monosexuality page needs revision from a trans perspective. What do you all think? It's not my text, don't worry!

'The term “monosexuality” has also been used to describe the sexuality of people who only wish to have sex with one specific person, regardless of gender. This becomes important when considering partners that choose to remain in their relationship with a transsexual or transgender person. Note that this meaning is quite contradictory to the usual meaning of the term, since someone who chooses to remain in such a relationship cannot reasonably be considered either homosexual or heterosexual.'

DanB DanD 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, among other things, the text assume the transperson's partner is not trans themselves! It also seems unable to imagine that the transperson may be fully accepted in their "chosen" gender by their partner, and relegates them to some third or in-between gender. I'd delete everything from "This becomes important...". ntennis 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

The article starts off with two definitions:

Transgender is an overarching term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies that diverge from the normative gender role (woman or man) commonly, but not always, assigned at birth, as well as the role traditionally held by society.

Transgender is the state of one's "gender identity" (self-identification as male, female, both or neither) not matching one's "assigned gender" (identification by others as male or female based on physical/genetic sex).

Both of which appear to be valid uses, but it seems a bit odd to just lump them together in two separate paragraphs, with no explanation. It seems to me that these are distinct (though with some overlap) usages of the term: e.g., a man who wears make-up and sometimes cross-dresses but identifies as a man would be transgender by the first definition, but not by the second. On the other hand, someone who identifies as a gender different to their "assigned gender" would be transgender by the second definition, regardless of their gender role. Shouldn't it be noted that there are these two definitions, rather than listing them with no explanation? Mdwh 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transgender as "in between" duplicates original definition in "Origens" section

I removed the "transgender as in between" section as it was a direct mirror of the original definition of transgender, which is already present in the article. Mugaliens 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CD Heterosexuality

I do not believe a "citation needed" should exist for the following: "Contrary to common belief, the vast majority of cross-dressers, which comprises the vast majority of those who wear clothing of the opposite sex, are heterosexual [citation needed]."

This is a commonly known fact throughout the CD community. Countless online polls of CD-specific websites have confirmed that less than 10% of those who identify as crossdressers are other than heterosexual. Furthermore, historically crossdressing and transvestism have been seen as fairly synonomous. However, in recent years, most of those identify as a crossdresser may wear female clothing, such as heels, pants, or a shirt, but they identify and appear as male. They are not trying to "pass." They simply enjoy, for whatever reason, wearing items of clothing intended for females. Contrarily, most of those who identify as a transvestite do try to pass. Finally, some who might be labeled as a crossdresser reject that label entirely, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that heels were worn by men for half of the last five hundred years, the fact that men's fashion has, over the last thousand years, run the gamut of most everything (except for bras) currently found in the female side of the store, and the fact that fashion changes on a fairly continual basis. In the last ten years, fashion shows have seen many men in heels and far more "feminine" outfits than one might find on the street. Some men have taken notice, and when these fashions haven't appeared in the men's side of the store, they've simply shopped on the other side.

Thus, caution is advised before any labels of transvestism or crossdressing are applied in any given situation, as some rather compelling arguments can be presented which counter both labels, unless the behavior is to such an extreme that it's clear (nails, hair, boobs) that the individual is desiring to appear as a member of the opposite sex. Mugaliens 19:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is all true (and yes, it is) why don't you add that to the article? Or, more specifically, to an article on tranvestites or cross dressers? Further, just because the CD community knows that most CDs are heterosexual doesn't mean a citation isn't needed. CDs aren't exactly an all pervasive group, and there are people out there who think all gays and transexuals/transgenders are transvestites, and all transvestites are gay. A citation would be beneficial.(Kiyae 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] since I got random'ed here...

216.221.96.202 added a strange vandalism [here] and i fixed it. block, anyone?Teh tennisman 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is transgenderism a disorder? A mental illness?

I got into a running debate with someone who insisted that transgenderism was a mental illness, and a disorder. Despite Gender Identity Dysphoria being in the DSM-IV as a "disorder", I am not entirely sure that it should be one. Yeah, those people need advice, but is calling it a "disorder" doing that condition justice? And are transgenderists mentally ill? 204.52.215.107 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a disorder of sorts, but I consider it to be a physical disorder, not a mental. Being transgender, I can say from my own experience that no amount of therapy can fully ease the difficulties that I have on a daily basis with my physical gender. However, throw reassignment surgery in with the therapy, and you've got a solution that allows many transgendered individuals to live (what the majority sees as) normal lives.

My body doesn't match my brain sex wise. You can't change the sex of the brain to match the body, however you can change the body to match the brain. If there was the ability to change the sex of the brain, I still would not want it due to the fact I would be a completely different person then I am today.

Many psych problems trans individuals have are caused by dealing with their gender identity issues, and many times the problems lighten once they start to deal with their identity. Bri 19:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question - if you are 'transgender', then how many times have you changed your gender as opposed to your sex? - Alison^✍ 19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I realize I was being inconsistant with my use of 'sex' and 'gender' to describe things. An annoying aspecct of trying to explain to others constantly about the specifics of why I'm like how I am. I try to avoid using 'sex' normally since its a loaded word. 's/sex/gender/'

All too often, when I use transsexual, its interpreted as involving my sexuality, which has nothing to do with my gender. Hence why I consider myself transgendered, and hate using transsexual unless I have to. Bri 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another vi fan - yayyy!!! :) But yes, the term transgender bugs me because it's too ambiguous and fuzzy. The problem with transsexual folks is that they cannot change their gender identity, hence the need for a change of sex. The problem, as you say, with the 's'-word, is that people tend to think of sex acts and not the physical male-female differences - Alison^✍ 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is still really confusing...

and needs a serious clean up. As someone who knows very little about all this stuff I'm not really much clearer having read it. two suggestions to start with, please clearly define transman and transwoman, it's not immediately obvious which way the transition is taking place in each case (though I think I've worked it out now). Secondly there are whole lot of random sentences throughout that just don't fit. Most probably need more explanation but this needs to be placed properly in the article. It needs a simpler general overview with all the basic definitions at the start assuming the reader knows nothing and may have some of the usual prejudices (if there is such a thing?) becuase this seems to be the general overview and introduction page to a range of issues. this stuff is really important too, good luck. Pugsworth 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA incorrect?

[tɝans dʒɛn dɝ] seems like a weird pronunciation -Iopq 11:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should the “LGBT Click Box” be removed from the transgender article completely?

LGBT and Queer studies series
Gender · Homosexuality · Bisexuality · Transgender
LGBT history
Timeline · LGBT social movements · Gay Liberation
Culture
Community · Drag · Gay slang · Gay village · Pride · Queer theory · Religion · Separatist feminism · Symbols
Law
Marriage · Adoption · Sodomy law
Categories
This box: view • talk • edit

By positioning the navigational “LGBT Click Box” (Template:LGBT) at the top right of the article, the association of transgender people with „LGB“ (disambiguation page, where the text “Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals” is linked to LGBT, LGB again “pocketing” transgender) is extremely overemphasized, falsely making the connection appear absolute, predominant and obligatory, where in fact (quote from LGBT#Controversy):

•  »The term LGBT is controversial. For example, some transgender and transsexual people do not like the term because they do not believe their cause is the same as that of LGB people; they may also object when an organization adds a T to their acronym when the level of service they actually offer to trans people is questionable. There are also LGB people who don't like the T for the same or similar reasons.

  ---

  Many people also believe that a sharp distinction should be drawn between sexual orientation and gender identity. GLB concerns the former; TTI concerns the latter.«

IMO the Template:LGBT should be removed from the transgender article completely, but not wanting to initiate an edit-war, I'll be content for the duration of discussion with positioning the template less predominant below the transgender symbol. Transgender is the main-topic of the article, which essentially has nothing to do with any specific form of sexual orientation, because transgender people can for example also be heterosexual or even asexual.
-- ParaDox 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My heart tells me to disagree with you, but my head says you're right. Very frequently, transsexuals and transgenders are not fully supported by the LGB community. There is a "trumping" or "poketing" effect when it comes to Homosexual and Transgender relationships. And yes, this article should emphasize transgenderism over the whole LGBT stuff. But again, my heart says to dsagree, quite simply because removing the flag is a very powerful symbolic gesture that shows you're not with us. As a gay cisman, I would hope I can support you, and you can support me. I would hope that even though our stations in life are different, that we can still connect on some level as partners, equals, whatever. Anyway, I just wanted to say that two of my friends came out as transsexuals in the past two years, and quite frankly, I would hate to not be able to stand under one unified banner with them and tell the whole bigoted world to go shove it. The rainbow isn't a symbol of homosexuality, it's a symbol of peace, love, compassion, and diversity. Whether you choose to keep the flag or not is up to you. But I for one will always leave my flag up, and you are always welcome to march under it with me. Whatever you choose, I hope that I can always march with you. (Kiyae 04:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

My head and heart both say it should stay. We are stronger together than we are apart. This isn't a new idea.... my grand-dad was an old union carpenter and I heard that from a young age: we all do better when we all do better. So there is a measure of political utility today in fostering that togetherness. That doesn't mean that we are the same. Gay men and lesbians have a lot not in common. Bisexuals sometimes have heterosexual marriages. However that doesn't mean that there are not common grounds between all of the people in the LGBT community. In addition, there are a lot of people who ID as one letter at one time, others at another, or both simultaneously. I am transgender and gay, so I feel that I belong. However I also know people who are transgender and straight who were previously in the LGBT movement because they presented as lesbian or gay. They need a place still as well. And they sure as hell won't get it from the straight/cisgender community. NickGorton 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] controversy

Placing the statement 'the t in lgbt is controversial' at the beginning of the article without further explanation, when its addresses further in the article makes a definite pov statement. Discussing it later in Contrast with "sexual orientation" places the issue in a better context. NickGorton 18:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)