Talk:Transgender pornography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Transsexual pornography

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Transgender pornography


Untitled section 1[edit]

FicticiousAnimation (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Look i'm kind of new to Wikipedia but this page is wrong. Transsexual is somebody who has undergone a complete sex-change. If it's only a partial sex-change (as in a girl with a dick or a man with boobs/vagina) that is transgender. There is no such thing as transgender porn, if you search for it nothing will show up. Shemales are not real, because the dick cannot get hard after being placed on a woman. It hasn't been figured out yet. Shemale porn is usually realistic strap-ons, clever video editing, an actual man dressed as a woman, or is animated/hentai. Transexual pornography does exist, but it is usually passed off as regular porn since it is nearly impossible to tell a trans from a cis, simply because once you undergo a sex change you have undergone a sex change. Literally, your sex is changed. You are, for example, no longer a man, you are a legitimate woman. This article is completely wrong. It should be renamed to "shemale porn" and the facts should follow that format, never bringing sex or gender into question. Also remember that sex =/= gender. It's obvious that whoever wrote this page thinks shemales are real, which they're not. (Sorry I don't really know how to use Wikipedia I would love some help learning everything. I'm trying my best to get the formatting right and stuff.) FicticiousAnimation (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

So much of this is wrong I don't even know where to begin :/ 86.153.60.194 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fetishisation[edit]

This article needs more exploration of how the vast majority of pornography featuring transgender women is made for the gaze of, marketed to and consumed by people who fetishise transgender women (often referred to as "tranny chasers", or "chasers" for short), and how this fetishisation is considered oppressive by the vast majority of transgender women including many sex workers (all across the sex industry) whose profession forces them to play into it. It could also expand on how part of the reason why "shemales", "trannies", "t-girls", "chicks with dicks" etc are considered slurs is that they're associated with the aforementioned fetishisation. 86.153.60.194 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

I think Shemale porn should be merged into this article as its more appriorpate than being redirected to Shemale.Dwanyewest (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest, the Shemale porn article doesn't exist. I take it that you mean the Shemale porn redirect? I think that, given what the Shemale article covers, and that the term shemale is so offensive to transgender people, it is likely best to keep the redirect pointing to the Shemale article. You could ask for input from WP:LGBT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would expect shemale porn to redirect to transsexual pornography. I don't see how the fact that the word "shemale" is offensive changes that (in fact, we have a template specifically for this case). Redirects are meant to help readers find the article they want, and if they are searching "shemale porn" I would expect that what they are looking for is an article about transwomen in pornography. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are valid, Caeciliusinhorto, and I agree that the Transsexual pornography article is likely the better target. The Shemale article is also about pornography, though. That's why I stated "given what the Shemale article covers." My comment was not solely about offensiveness. I do keep offensiveness in mind when editing controversial topics, though, per WP:Offensive material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Transsexual pornography article again, I now fully agree that "shemale porn" should redirect there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have removed the merge template as it is not applicable here. As for the redirect, if you need more input, I suggest sending it to RFD and notifying the applicable WikiProjects. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Issue has been definitively resolved. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shemale porn redirect discusion[edit]

There is a redirect discussion for Shemale porn. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 23#Shemale porn. You can add your opinion over there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been definitively resolved. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be redirected?[edit]

I think Transgender pornography should be redirected to this article to this article as it is the same as Transsexual pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Views on the Self-Identification of the Fanbase[edit]

The male Fans of Transgender Pornography are probably all bisexual or polysexual respectively pansexual.--217.92.58.201 (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a pornographic image[edit]

I added a sexually explicit image to the page of a trans male performer and cis male performer having sex and smiling, which was removed. (I would've added something featuring a trans woman, too, but didn't see anything suitable on Commons.) It seems like there's a general trend against using pornographic images on Wikipedia, so I wasn't really expecting my addition to stick, and won't push very hard for its inclusion. But just wanted to throw out a defense of the image anyway:

1. WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

2. Out of respect for readers' sensitivities, I put the image near the bottom of the page, rather than making it the lead image.

3. One argument that's been raised in other discussions is that we don't need sexual photographs in articles because we can just use drawings (drawings are apparently more tasteful). Well, in this case there are no suitable drawings that would work.

4. I think trans porn in particular is a pornographic subject where an image actually would help the readers' understanding. To a certain sort of person, if you say the phrase "cis man and trans man having sex", they might not even be able to picture what that looks like.

5. Personally, I find the image of two people happily having a sexual experience and smiling into the camera far, far, far, far, far, far less shocking and offensive than, say, all the images of lynching victims in the lynching article.

6. It's a nice, high quality image! Professionally-shot, well lit. It's not some blurry, awkward closeup taken with a cell phone camera or something. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You worry too much. What exactly were you worrying about? That the Church Lady was going to show up at a topic called "Transsexual pornography", and exclaim that they are "shocked–shocked–that there are naughty pictures in this article!" ? Relax. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me: I was arguing in favor of including a pornographic image (that is, an image that is more explicit than anything currently in the article.) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-op Transgender Pornographic Film Actors?[edit]

The Majority of female and male Transgender Pornographic Film Actors is pre-op but there is a minority of post-op Transgender Pornographic Film Actresses who mostly begun pre-op. Im not sure about the existence of post-op male Transgender Pornographic Film Actors.--178.7.228.95 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. After a lengthy listing period, there is now a consensus of participants that the proposed title is better than the current one, mainly for WP:CONSISTENCY reasons. There is consensus against abbreviating to "porn" or anything similar.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Transsexual pornography → Transgender pornography – Change dated term to match with parent category. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original close, which was overturned and relisted following a move review

The result of the move request was: Moved to trans porn; User:WanderingWanda's COMMONNAME analysis is the one that holds the most sway. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. The vast majority of trans topics are using Transgender rather than Transsexual. PC78 (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is invalid, and not based on any Wikipedia policy. The name of this topic is determined by policy with respect to WP:COMMONNAME and other policy issues defined at WP:AT, and not by some bogus tally of what other "trans topics" use as *their* name, which could be completely different, based on the prevalence of usage for those topics. Furthermore, per WP:WINARS, since Wikipedia is self-published and not a reliable source, you cannot use the names of other articles here as evidence for what this one should be called. Stick to policy. Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency (WP:TITLECON) is not an "invalid" argument; your own argument for WP:COMMONNAME seems to be missing some supporting evidence. PC78 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TITLECON is invalid here, for two reasons: there is no naming convention for articles about trans topics as there are for dozens of other topics, like, say, baseball, film, or people. In any case, TITLECON is neither guideline nor policy; please stick to policy. As for evidence, here's your evidence. COMMONNAME is part of WP:Article titles, and that is policy. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is. Both of those Google searches pull up 25 pages of results [1][2] so that's hardly conclusive "evidence" either way. PC78 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Transsexual pornography is the common name and the nominator has not provided evidence to oppose this. The topic is genre of pornography, therefore the the fact the term transsexual appears to be a dated term is not the only factor we should consider. Lmatt (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Lmatt, and WP:COMMONNAME. Would disagree slightly with Lmatt, in that transsexual does appear to be dated in several contexts where it used to be used more than more modern alternatives, but in the compound "transsexual pornography", it is still the most common, and thus not dated for this meaning. COMMONNAME governs here; the differening usage of transsexual in other contexts has no bearing in how this topic is named. Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move per WP:COMMONNAME and my research (below). Top preference: Trans porn. Ranked preference: Trans > Transgender > Transsexual; Porn > Pornography.
Note that there is precedent for using "trans" in article titles: see Trans woman and Trans man. And "trans" can stand for either "transsexual" or "transgender" so it's kind of a middle ground.
I have a slight preference for "porn" over "pornography" based on my research. But I notice that most of our porn articles use the longer form (Two exceptions: Alt porn and List of male performers in gay porn films). The SAGE LGBTQ Encyclopedia uses "pornography" as well.
  • Google News (all time):
  • "trans porn": 216 [3]
  • "transgender porn": 191 [4]
  • "transsexual porn": 79 [5]
  • "transgender pornography": 36 [6]
  • "transsexual pornography": 8 [7]
  • "trans pornography": 7 [8]
  • Google Scholar (2015-present):
  • "trans porn": 40 [9]
  • "transgender porn": 26 [10]
  • "transgender pornography": 21 [11]
  • "transsexual porn": 19 [12]
  • "trans pornography": 10 [13]
  • "transsexual pornography": 9 [14]
  • SAGE LGBTQ encyclopedia (2016):
  • "Trans* pornography". It first introduces the concept with "Trans* (transgender or transsexual) pornography" [15]
– WanderingWanda (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Google Books (21st century):
  • "trans porn": 12 pages of results [16]
  • "transgender porn": 10 pages [17]
  • "transsexual porn": 8 pages [18]
  • "transgender pornography": 7 pages [19]
  • "trans pornography": 6 pages [20]
  • "transsexual pornography": 6 pages [21]
  • Also: while we should base the decision on secondary sources, I thought it wouldn't hurt to look at what porn sites actually use. Looking at the top five "Most Popular Porn Websites In America", none of the five use "transsexual" on the main page or category page. Two use "transgender", one "trans", one "transgirl", and one "shemale". – WanderingWanda (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Some of the figures above were wrong because Google is dumb. Fixed. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. –Aνδρέας talk | contributions 02:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting Comment - I closed the move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 November, with a consensus to overturn and relist the previous close of this discussion. It is therefore relisted for another week.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging previous participants: Bohemian Baltimore PC78 Mathglot Lmatt WanderingWanda -andreas, as well as Crossroads who initiated the MRV. Please could you circle back to this discussion, discuss some more, state your preference and rationale, and hopefully come up with a clearer consensus for the next time this is closed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "transgender pornography", though "transsexual pornography" is a close second; oppose "trans porn" or any other version with either abbreviated word. "Porn" is informal and so should not be an encyclopedia article title. [22][23] Note that one of the two existing articles that used "porn" has now switched to "pornographic". "Pornography" is also the term used by the SAGE LGBTQ Encyclopedia as mentioned above.
  • "Trans" should not be used because to many of our readers (unlike those of us who edit in this area) it will be unclear what it means. Transgressive? Transformative? Transmogrification? "Transgender" (or "transsexual") more clearly identifies the topic per WP:COMMONNAME. Note too that in WanderingWanda's Google analysis that the short version "trans" is well outnumbered by the longer versions "transgender" and "transsexual" combined; this indicates that "trans" by itself is not the common name, with one of the more precise terms being used more.
  • Hopefully those pinged can comment on this additional matter of short vs. long versions of terms. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The SAGE choice (trans* pornography) is an interesting one, especially considering this AT excerpt: "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used.". It avoids some of the hesitation between transsexual and transgender, and I think it also avoids the lack of clarity. For some reason, just the addition of that asterisk makes it sound less informal to me than trans porn, or even trans pornography. A minor downside, perhaps, is the special character (asterisk), but this is not unprecedented (Yahoo!). Could this be a compromise choice? Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the weird asterisk makes it even worse than "trans", but the clincher against it is that the term "trans*" is very uncommon, more than any of the ones considered so far. I would prefer "transgender", and note that our article Transsexual states with sources that transsexual is a subset of transgender. It's not like "transgender" excludes "transsexual". -Crossroads- (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My anecdotal sense is that the trans asterisk had its moment in the sun a while back, but that it's been fading from use. But it's hard to research "trans*" because Google treats "*" as a wildcard. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. It's too easy to manipulate search stats for me to trust the COMMONNAME arguments (in either direction). As long as the appropriate redirects work, then all will be well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:CONSISTENCY; oppose unencyclopedic "porn." Ribbet32 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion[edit]

Here's some better (and better formatted) search data. No major surprises:

Phrase News
all-time		 News
21st century		 Scholar
all-time		 Scholar
21st century		 Books
all-time		 Books
21st century		 Total
all-time		 Total
21st century		 Examples
trans porn 217 214 89 78 213 77 519 369 [24] [25] [26] [27]
transgender porn 197 197 56 52 179 97 432 346 [28] [29] [30] [31]
transgender pornography 103 113* 40 37 173 84 316 234 [32] [33] [34]
transsexual porn 73 75 45 40 198 61 316 176 [35] [36] [37]
transsexual pornography 8 8 31 28 189 51 228 87 [38] [39] [40]
trans pornography 7 7 20 19 192 64 219 90 [41] [42] [43]

*No, I don't know why the searches sometimes show 21st-century-only results slightly outnumbering all-time results. Blame Google.

My main thought is that the title shouldn't contain the word "transsexual". I don't have anything against the word personally, but it's clearly been falling in use, and many readers will find it oddly out-of-date.

I see three potential titles, each with pros and cons. Ultimately I'm fine with any of these, but I do still lean towards "Trans porn", per sources and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

  • Trans porn
    • Pros: Most concise. Seemingly used most in sources. Probably the term readers are most likely to type in. I do think there is a legitimate concern about the word "porn" and whether it's appropriate, but it is a word that's been used in the blandly respectable New York Times [44] and the stodgily old-fashioned New Yorker [45]. And "Trans porn" has been used in The Atlantic [46] and Vice [47].
    • Cons: "Porn" is listed as "informal" in dictionaries [48]. (WP:TITLE mentions that titles should be an encyclopedic register and WP:MOS mentions that articles should use formal, not colloquial English.) And most of our other porn articles use "pornography".
  • Trans pornography
    • Pros: This might have the best version of each word. Unlike the word "porn", "trans" is not listed as "informal" in any dictionary. "Trans" is more concise. It's also broader, since it can stand for either "transgender" or "transsexual" [49]. In addition, The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies (2016) uses the similar title Trans* pornography. (WP:TITLE recommends looking at what titles other encyclopedias use.)
    • Cons: A bit odd to use the shortened form of one word but not the other, and the combination "trans pornography" is at the bottom of the pack in my searches.
  • Transgender pornography
    • Pros: the phrase that is seemingly used the most in sources, once you eliminate any phrase with "porn" from consideration.
    • Cons: Least concise option. And, although "transgender" is often considered to be an inoffensive umbrella term that encompasses "transsexual", Buck Angel, who is featured prominently in the article, strongly identifies with the older term transsexual, and outright rejects the word "transgender" [50].

I've notified Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this discussion. WanderingWanda (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_pornography&oldid=1195106651"