Talk:Trans woman/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Controversy not properly represented - Merriam-Webster 2022 not definitive

Wikipedia is not meant to drive opinion, it is meant to reflect opinion. That the different respectable views of the several contentious issues involved here are not properly represented is troubling. The article comes most decisively down on one side, practically ignoring other opinion. We ought remember that was is today considered the "truth" in this area is very new. If we can get to a radically new "truth" on matters like this in less than 20 years then we ought to consider that our views will likely/possibly have changed again 20 years from now. So, for example, using a particular dictionary or not for a decisive view ignores that this same dictionary had a radically different definition of "woman" only 20 years ago. Whether we have discovered truth or current thought is just fashion remains to be seen. I think we ought not so confidently be documenting this fashion, this truth. Other dictionaries have not yet caught up with M-W and may never do so, depending on whether this is fashion or truth. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this some sort of attempt to “teach the controversy” or do you have an actual constructive edit you want to propose? Dronebogus (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this some sort of attempt to become ad hominem? But I think there's two fallacies in one here: It just isn't the case that one can't express disquiet with an argument without a concrete fix in mind. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

While I am all for epistemic humility, and your caution against recentism is well taken, the warning that "things might change" is an ever-present danger (see, e.g., the empiricism of David Hume). As such, I am not sure it alone is really enough to persuade me that some sort of change is needed. Rather I think we follow the reliable sources and adapt as we can. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The empiricism of David Hume is represented as Hume's view, one shared by many perhaps, but it is not represented as the universally recognised Truth. Here, however we do represent as the Truth a particular view in a genuine controversy and do not allow any contrary view to be represented. The controversy is well known to all here. Let me plainly state what it is: Many do think, including many experts, that a trans-woman is not a woman. Now, don't shoot the messenger, I appreciate this is a highly emotive issue etc etc, but this view is not represented here. That view should be represented and the first sentence should make this plain. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not a Wikipedia mode of argument. You are welcome to propose changes, but they really should be racked up by reference to reliable sources, and not just ipse dixit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing an article properly requires a certain amount of work. On a controversial article, such as this one, some delicacy is required. I am not in a position right now to do the necessary work. I am prepared to quickly note my objection in the hope that others might be emboldened to do the necessary edit! There needs at the very least to be an acknowledgement of the genuinely non-fringe controversial nature of this topic. There is a mainstream view not represented and you all know it. That does not serve the public well and it does not reflect well on Wikipedia. nor on the editors who surely do know what I say is correct. The controversy is not acknowledged in the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay then. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Trans woman is a biological male that identifies as a women. Mari2023 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done, article says in first sentence: is a woman who was assigned male at birth." --Mvqr (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a long, long RfC above where it was discussed at length whether a trans woman was a woman. The opinion has been settled, and it's not going to change any time soon. Cessaune (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

To be very precise: the recent lede RfC discussed whether A trans woman is an woman who was assigned male at birth, is the best definition to use in first sentence of this Wikipedia article, not whether this is a factually true statement. Community consensus over the years, and reliable sources, both agree that it is.

Just like in the 2018 RfC, the result of that discussion was no consensus whether A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender identity was a preferable definition, and thus, the status quo is retained. So it is not exactly "settled", as it is a topic that good-faith contributors are very likely to argue ad infinitum, with no definitive result.

If we're lucky it'll stay dormant for at least another four years. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Overview section — what?

If the lead is supposed to be a reflection of the article, how come the Overview section doesn't contain all of the information in the first paragrah of the lead? Cessaune (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, each of the three sentences that comprise the OPENing paragraph is a summary of material appearing in either the #Overview, #Terminology, or #Sexual orientation sections. It is not required that the lede section's summary of the body presents information in exactly the same order it appears in the body, we are free to present them in the order that results in the most clarity. Cheers, –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for your input. I agree. Cessaune (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender-affirming surgery

@Lukewarmbeer: Why have you now twice reverted the terminology change from sex reassignment surgery to gender-affirming surgery? The change in terminology by the relevant clinical guidelines and journals was discussed in significant detail during a move request of the parent article back in November 2022. Current medical sources and guidelines overwhelmingly use gender-affirming surgery when referring to this type of surgery for the last 5 years now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Support the change, per the RM discussion, and for terminological consistency with the renamed article. Politely ask Lukewarmbeer to use more substantive edit summaries in future BRD cycles. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I take your point. Thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Having read through the move request etc. which I hadn't before. It seems that a form of consensus was reached and I bow to that. Please accept my apologies for an ill considered reversion.

Having read it I have to say it seems to me that the route to consensus was flawed. I will do some more reading if I am to burden you further

For now can you help me with this.....

Given that the surgery is required to align, as far as possible, a persons body to their own understanding of their gender - so affirming that understanding - do you use the same terminology for someone who has undergone that process and wishes to reverse it?

Also does this terminology have a negative connotation for those who understand that they were assigned a gender at birth that doesn't match their understanding of themselves, but choose not to 'affirm'?

Thanks in anticipation. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Gender affirming" is preferred because it's a broader term. "Sex change/reassignment" is usually just referring to vaginoplasty or phalloplasty. But "gender affirming surgery" can refer to any of those genitalia surgeries, as well as mastectomies, breast augmentation, facial feminization, etc.

As for your hypotheticals, In both cases, I'd say "gender affirming surgery" is still the term that makes the most sense. In the latter case, most trans people understand that everyone can "affirm" their gender however they want. This is easier to see when talking about less permanent gendered attributes. If a woman affirms her gender by wearing a dress, that doesn't lessen the womanhood of those who aren't in a dress.

In the case of the person who has changed their mind, it's still the current/professed gender identity that's being affirmed, so the language remains accurate. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your time in responding. I will digest :) Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious what you mean by the consensus being flawed. A significant body of evidence was presented during the move request, demonstrating not only that it was the most frequently used terminology in medical literature published in the last five years, but also the major relevant clinical guidelines. The current terminology as used by the relevant sources is gender-affirming surgery.

Given that the surgery is required to align, as far as possible, a persons body to their own understanding of their gender That's a misconception that typically stems from transmedicalism. If a person says they are trans or non-binary, then they are trans or non-binary. In modern gender-affirming care there's no prescribed "you must do X to be a real Y" pathways involved. Some people are perfectly satisfied with just a social transition (ie name and pronoun changes, growing hair out, wardrobe change, etc), some others are satisfied with just the changes that happen as a result of taking the relevant HRT, and there are some who need specific surgeries to be satisfied. None of these different groups of people are any more or less trans or non-binary depending on how they wish to undergo their own transitions.

do you use the same terminology for someone who has undergone that process and wishes to reverse it? Yes. Whether a person is seeking the surgery to transition or detransition, they are still affirming their gender by doing so. And in many cases, it is the same techniques being preformed regardless of whether a person is transitioning or detransitioning.

Also does this terminology have a negative connotation for those who understand that they were assigned a gender at birth that doesn't match their understanding of themselves, but choose not to 'affirm'? Not that I'm aware of. That specific question is something that's hard to answer within the realm of medical literature. Every trans and non-binary person's transition is unique to them. Some people want specific surgeries, and some people don't. For example, reasons for not wanting a vaginoplasty or phalloplasty can include not being able to afford it, the surgery not being available in their country or region, dissatisfaction with the results of current surgical techniques, or simply just not wanting or needing it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. Appreciated. I will give them some though. I won't go into detail re "'Flawed" unless and until I have my ducks in a row to save bothering this Talk unnecessarily. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that, since it's creation, until this revision, the term sex reassignment surgery was used in this article?

Revision as of 23:11, 21 January 2023 (edit)(undo) (thank)

Whoop whoop pull up (talk | contribs)

And was the edit summary (Fixing capitalization of an acronym and general fixes)?

You old hands may think these are strange questions but in explanation: I am fairly new to this and don't want to make any more faux pas if I can avoid it). Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Having read through the mentions of the issue (affirm rather than reassign) there is no grounds for thinking that this is established.

Take as a very recent (14/01/23) example this report from BBC News.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669

When I noticed the revision in 'recent changes' the article had read 'reassignment' since the move. The status quo was reassignment and that is where I think it should stay unless and until we develop a different consensus here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Like I said before, the main reason "gender affirming surgery" is preferred is because it's a more general term, and therefore more accurate. The BBC article is not relevant, and shows a certain lack of care. That's an article from 18 hours ago about a single person who is a convicted rapist. It doesn't even have a byline. Not the BBC's best work, and doesn't belong on wikipedia.

I don't think anyone has said that "sex reassignment surgery" is completely deprecated, it's just not the best phrase to use, especially in the lead. "Gender affirming surgery" includesthings like facial feminization surgery, but "sex reassigment surgery" doesn't. So it's better in the lead. As far as I can tell, nobody has a problem with Lili Elbe's surgery being called "sex reassignment surgery" because that's specifically talking about vaginoplasty (of which there's a few types). Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

there is no grounds for thinking that this is established Five years of consistent usage by medical sources, all of the current relevant clinical guidelines, and by subject related media reference guides is not grounds for thinking the shift in terminology is established?

With regards to naming medical content, like gender-affirming surgery, the popular press is generally not a reliable source. It is not uncommon for media sources to use out of date terminology, amongst a whole range of other issues when reporting on such content. With regards to the specific BBC source this is compounded by the primary focus of the article being about a criminal conviction, and that the content that mentions surgery was written by the BBC Scotland's Home affairs correspondent, and not a medical correspondent, the somewhat odd usage of gender reassignment surgery by the BBC could easily be explained by the correspondent writing content on a topic he's not fully familiar with. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'll leave it with you experts. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This article has issues

First, I think there's a huge overemphasis on violence and discrimination. Of course those are important topics for any marginalized group, but it shouldn't define them. I think this information should be condensed to a brief excerpt from another related article (Transmisogyny probably).

The sexuality section isn't great either. I renamed the "sexual orientation" category to "Sexuality," and deleted the libido subheading. But I'm not sure the libido paragraph belongs at all. It's a whole lot of primary sources, and maybe doing some synthesis. The sexuality section should just be re-written with a little more from Transgender sexuality.

The lead, overview and terminology sections all kind of bleed together, and can be trimmed. The lead should be an effective overview, so you shouldn't need an overview section. The terminology section could be better organized. Or it could be split into a couple sections and expanded. For example, travesti could go in a section that talks about other identities that usually fall under the 'trans woman' identity. there's probably an easily accessible academic source for that info.

I think this article really needs a history section, and choosing a starting point for that might be tricky. Maybe it should just start at the first homosexual movement, because that's when the term "transvestite" was coined, which is how the modern term "trans woman" evolved. There's probably a better article to link to for a history of trans/gender variant people before the 19th century. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I made some big changes to the article, but kept deletions to a minimum. it still needs a lot of improvements. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

More accurate definition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This would be a more accurate definition, one which recognises that there are rival opinions on this issue:

A trans woman or a transgender woman is, according to people who believe that it is possible for a man to become a woman, a woman who was assigned male at birth. According to those who do not believe that it is possible for a man to become a woman, a trans woman or a transgender woman is a man who identifies as a woman. PortholePete (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@PortholePete it's not accurate at all. this is like the evolution article opening "evolution is, according to people who believe that it is possible for a monkey to become a man..." Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Which version of evolutionary theory includes the idea of a monkey becoming a man?PortholePete (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's my point. You're putting a strawman in for the definition of trans woman. Your new definition shows an unfamiliarity with the topic. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

People who define 'woman' using objective terms obviously will not refer to 'a transgender woman' as 'a woman who was assigned male at birth'. It is only people who define 'woman' using subjective terms who do. There are people who use biological fact in determining how they describe things, no matter how rare they may be among Wikipedia editors. Such people are more likely to use the term 'a man who identifies as a woman', just as they might describe 'a medium' as 'a person who believes they receive some kind of supernatural communication' instead of something along the lines of 'a person who receives supernatural communication'. PortholePete (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Please review the archived RfCs (2018, 2022) on the lede to get a grasp for common arguments regarding this sentence. Any introduction to the article must be based on WP:reliable sources, and not editors’ own opinions as to what constitutes an “objective definition” or “biological fact”.

See Talk:Trans woman/Definitions for a gallery of how RS define this article’s topic. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Objective verifiable fact is a reliable source, regardless of what the mob at Wikipedia think. Feelings and mob opinions are not facts. PortholePete (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lack of variety on this talk page

Lately, just about every section of this talk page is about trying to challenge the first sentence in this article. This is just getting boring. Do lots of talk pages go the same way sometimes?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The {{round in circles}} template which gets added to articles that have this sort of repetitive discussion problem is currently transcluded on 579 articles. So yeah, it's a problem that happens on more than a few talk pages for controversial articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Previous RfC, new RfC?

I know what is going to be said: Didn't we already have an RfC? Recently-ish?

Yes.

It sucked.

Here is my proposal for a new one that asks the exact same question as the 2022 one.

1. Before we actually hold the RfC, write and display a list of arguments that will not be taken into account, potentially including (but not limited to):
   • Presenting any opinion as an axiom from which a conclusion can be drawn, without first backing it up with sources, such as:
     • A trans woman is not a woman because biology (this needs sourcing)
     • A trans woman is a woman being a standalone argument (this needs sourcing also) or variations like identity = sex
2. Unofficial moderators who flag !votes that do not comply with the above disallowed arguments, and ping !voters so that they are aware and have a chance to rewrite/!vote again.
3. Singular sources being the basis for an argument, as there is a lot of disagreement between RSs.
4. An arbitrary ending date to disallow infinitely long conversations that ultimately move nowhere.

Set this up to be a high-level RfC, where the !votes of those who actually care will be counted, and not the passing-by whispers of IPs or the average armchair warrior. I want to fully avoid that kind of discussion where it just becomes a talk of nothing that wastes everyones time. Arguments predicated upon a synthesis (but not SYNTH) of reliable sources, a high-level discussion that focuses on metrics and not opinion, and a well-thought out system of disabling average Joe !votes that needlessly contribute to the no consensus outcome we've seen twice before, would foster an environment for change, one where we can finally and definitively define the lead sentence for this article and others.

It was too easy to weigh in with opinions in the previous two RfCs. Considering the controversial nature of trans women in today's society (people make a big deal over nothing), and the controversial nature of the first sentence (given the abnormally high numbers of passers-by talking about it on the talk page), an RfC pertaining to trans women and the first sentence of the article is going to gather more views than the random RfC on Cade Klubnik and the other one about solipsism. If we really hone in the parameters, really take the time to create an actually meaningful RfC, we can avoid the obvious pitfalls of the previous two.

Obviously, to start an RfC so soon (okay, it's not that soon, but it is that soon) after the previous one needs some light form of consensus. There are many who watch this page, and I would appreciate it if y'all weighed in.

(I participated in the 2022 RfC, under the name 2ple. I said some things irrelevant to the discussion. I apologize thoroughly. It's the reason I created a new account, in fact. I was so ashamed and embarrased because of what I said here. I was a model of the exact problem with the previous RfC.)

Thanks in advance, Cessaune [talk] 06:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of the status quo version, so I'd be hesitant to agree to an RfC. I think the issue here is less about the first sentence than the body, and that many readers don't actually get past the lead, or follow links to learn some of the nuance in the words we're using. Perhaps we need a better explainer in the body about concepts behind sex/gender? I'd written something decent in the first paragraph of Transsexual using a high quality source. But beyond that, I'm not sure an RfC is gonna solve the issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, God, Not Again. I see nothing to suggest that SFR's closure, or the lack of consensus itself, was swayed by passers-by or armchair warriors (which I'm choosing not to interpret as a snide remark against anyone who contributed to that discussion), nor by participants proclaiming unsubstantiated tautologies. At a glance, the only anonymous user who contributed substantively was 24.20.73.137. The vast majority of discussion occurred between regular good-faith editors in the GENSEX area, who certainly appear to actually care, and the general civility on display exceeded my wildest expectations. If I were going to enumerate a list of perceived issues with the recent RfC, I would probably focus on over-reliance on simple numerical analysis of the Definitions subpage as if this were a substitute for critically assessing WP:DUEWEIGHT. I hesitantly invoked WP:SNOWBALL in the discussions preceding that RfC, and do so now more confidently. Unless there is a silver bullet policy based argument for one option over the other which neither RfC addressed, I see very little reason to run the entire god-forsaken process again, expecting an emergent pro- or con- consensus this time around. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Woman has two different meanings; I don't know if that NPOV issue was discussed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I don't know if any discussion would lead to more issues being discussed in a better way. I'm sure NPOV was discussed to death, as a lot of the RFC had to do with the neutrality of the wording and the various sources supporting either side. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The close didn't discuss NPOV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The close might not have touched on NPOV, however NPOV concerns were discussed in detail in the RfC. Multiple editors including yourself Kolya remarked on it in their !votes, and there was a lengthy subsection which was started by you on whether "a trans woman is a woman" was or was not NPOV complaint. Given the length of that subsection alone, I think it's fair to say that NPOV was discussed in the RfC even if the closer didn't remark upon it directly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Even though I loved Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, I don't think that approach would work here. But if we have to have the discussion, then I want to hear this song playing on infinite loop during the entire time, with the song starting over again from the beginning each time you visit the page, until the last person has left, stark, raving, mad. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Come to think of it, maybe this song would be better. Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not Stay (Rihanna song): around and around and around we go...? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe starting a new RfC would be productive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• To be clear, I do not think we are anywhere near ready to have another RFC, but it would be interesting to summarize all the arguments presented at the last RFC and discuss them. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  A new proposal which may address some of the opposition to the word "person" may be: A trans woman is an adult who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender (identity). Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think we've had enough RfCs for now. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's too soon. I would suggest expanding/refining the Definitions subpage - part of the problem is that there was a massive drop of new definition-sources mid-RfC last time. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

A reliable source that conflicts with this article

Unnecessary trolling. Consider adding to Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Trans Student Educational Resources describes itself as "the only national organization run by young transgender people." https://transstudent.org/history/ It publishes a "Model Admissions Policy on Transgender Students at Women’s Colleges." That document includes a list of definitions, one of which is the following: "Trans woman/trans man: Trans woman generally describes someone assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman. Trans man generally describes someone assigned female at birth who identifies as a man." https://transstudent.org/policy/model-admissions-policy-on-transgender-students-at-womens-colleges/ I've learned from Wikipedia that this definition is incorrect. A trans woman is not "someone." She is, by definition, a woman, and any reference to her in other terms flirts with transphobia, at the very least. One of the editors here should reach out to TSER and see that this error is corrected. 24.20.73.137 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Womanhood as biology or psychology

The lead of this article implicitly yet obviously indicates that being a woman is a question of gender identity. This contradicts that article, which equally obviously indicates that being a woman is primarily a statement about a person's biology. I make no claim about which is correct, but someone who understands this issue better than I should resolve the tension. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Short answer, yes this is a known problem. Many attempts at amending the lead of woman to address the inherent biological essentialism within it have been attempted and opposed on that article's talk page, which you can view in the talk page archives over there. However a core set of editors at that article seem resistant to change, even when supported by high quality sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is perhaps not ideal but it is a workable compromise for the time being. Really, there are three articles at play here. Woman is defined as a female human, and female notes that it refers to sex or gender. So on a technicality woman is not taking an essentialist position. But that requires some inference, so we keep running into this issue, and I'm not certain the best way to solve it. Perhaps a discussion of the meaning of female on the woman page? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Female and Woman are largely on the same page here. The first sentence of Female says an organism is female if it produces eggs (obviously a biological definition), and the next six sentences all discuss biology too, with a single sentence noting that "female" has a derivative meaning within the context of gender. Trans woman is the clear outlier here.

As for solutions, I was thinking something similar to you, although I doubt it is that simple. I infer from Sideswipe9th's comment that there is some disconnect in the thought processes of the editors writing Woman/Female and those writing Trans woman. I would speculate that this is caused by how most cis women (the vast majority of women) understand or experience being female as a biological reality foremost and a psychosocial one only derivatively, whereas for trans women this is entirely reversed; I am not well-acquainted with this topic, but I would guess that scholarly literature probably reflects this divide. IMO, the way the issue is framed is probably too extreme in all three articles.

I don't suppose there is any scholarly literature holistically integrating biology and gender identity into concepts of "male" and "female" that we could as a launching point for such a conversation? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I would disagree with the assertion that most cis women understand or experience their femininity as a "biological reality". There is a philosophical split, typically but not exclusively drawn down generational lines, for how women define womanhood. Some view it purely as a matter of biology, some view it as a social construct, some as something you perform, for some it is to do with the roles you are comfortable fulfilling in society, and for others it is to do with how you express yourself.

With regards to scholarly literature, it is more split on how you define womanhood than our article unfortunately implies. The problem with the female and woman articles is that they both define themselves heavily in biology, often to the exclusion of the other definitions. Numerous attempts at addressing this divide have been made, as can be evidenced via the talk page archives for woman and female. As I've replied below, CaptainEek's suggestion on a discussion on the meaning of female has been attempted twice in the last twelve months, which among several other related discussions and a resistance to include non-biological definitions of the word female, lead to the creation of Draft:Female (gender) as well as a rather heated deletion discussion.

Unfortunately right now editors like myself don't know any way to solve this conundrum, and it's not for lack of trying I'm afraid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: we've actually already had that conversation on the Woman about a year ago, and again in August 2022. That was one of several factors that lead to the creation of Draft:Female (gender), along with a rather intensely discussed AFD. You can find most of the key discussions that lead up to the creation of the draft here. Unfortunately aside from the creation of the draft, repeated discussions at Talk:Woman and Talk:Female have not resulted in any meaningful change to address this problem that keeps reoccurring. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I'm not certain that creating Female (gender) is the right solution either. To clarify my brief comment earlier, what I meant by discussion of the meaning of female was that perhaps it needs to be discussed in the woman article better. Maybe under the terminology section? Something that elaborates that female can refer to sex or gender or both. Perhaps its worth copying over the first paragraph from the terminology section at Transsexual, or some version of it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I believe a variation of exploring the different definitions of woman was discussed and rejected in June 2020. I'm not seeing a discussion on the differing definitions of female however, but I might be missing it in the archives. It is worth proposing at least at Talk:Woman, unless I have just missed it in the archives. Do you wish to do the honours? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The definition here has also been discussed at great length, but there was no consensus to change it. In fact, you commented in that RfC.

I don't agree that this is a problem or that there is a contradiction, but insofar as one did exist, it would be one that exists in the underlying bodies of sources - and hence is not our problem to resolve, but theirs. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. It seems that part of the intention with Draft:Female (gender) is to provide a wikilink for "female" in the definition of woman, but that draft defines its topic as certain aspects of "being a woman or girl". So, it's circular (surely at least as much a problem as an alleged cross-article contradiction), and matters having to do with sex and sex differences (such as much of women's health) are disconnected. Proponents of that draft and of greater definitional emphasis elsewhere on gender or gender identity have been asked repeatedly how they think sex does relate, and nothing clear was forthcoming IIRC. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Female In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity.

Woman is an adult female human.

Trans woman is an adult female human who was assigned male at birth. Where are the contradictions? Reprarina (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The contradiction is that the lead in Female implies that trans women (and many sterile cis women) are not female. I think it's a pretty minor contradiction, since the Female article is covering a whole lot more species than humans. The Female lead is also pretty misleading for plants, so that's probably where the problem is. Trying to make a definition of "female" that includes female marijuana plants and sterile women, while excluding trans men and dioecious plants? Good luck. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

How does NPOV apply to this article?

Specifically, to the definition of the word "woman" as used here. I'm not addressing the issue of whether or in what sense trans women actually are women, only the usage of the word.

No consensus in the sources. No consensus among the editors. NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be represented.

Yet somehow, because there is no consensus, only one viewpoint is represented. How is that consistent with NPOV? 24.20.73.137 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

What in particular do you take issue with? Or what change do you suggest? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a change. I'm asking a question about how the policies of this site are applied. There is a dispute about the meaning of the word "woman" that the article ignores. The WP article on "Woman" defines it in a manner inconsistent with this article, for example. I realize that there is no policy requiring articles with overlapping subject matter to be consistent with each other, but there is a policy requiring all significant viewpoints to be represented. How is this article consistent with that policy? I've read many pages of debate in the Talk section, and I still don't understand. It's almost as if a group of editors with some kind of special authority on this site has taken over this article and is using it to advocate for their point of view. But maybe I'm just missing something. 24.20.73.137 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the articles are inconsistent? A woman is an adult female human. A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Female notes that it can refer to sex or gender. So the definitions are consistent, if perhaps requiring some link following and reading. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Female can refer to sex or gender, so trans women are female if referring to gender, but their sex is male, so they are men when referring to sex, is that right? Jorgebox4 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jorgebox4 Well, their sex assignment at birth was male. But the point of transition is changing that, so the answer is no. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought sex and gender were different things… are you saying that trans women’s sex is female, same as their gender identity? Do you have any source for that? Jorgebox4 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're interested, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a section that summarizes Judith Butler's influential views on the matter (as well as competing feminist views). 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 22:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no way I would read Judith Butler, sorry, I’d trust a biologist in issues regarding human sex. Jorgebox4 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

IP this is not the place to ask a question about how the policies of this site are applied, as it is not part of the remit of an article talk page, which is limited to how to improve the article, which is (imho) why CaptainEek posed the question they did. There are pages where you can ask that question, one of them is the Wikipedia:Help desk. Another is at WT:NPOV. Perhaps you could try one of those. If that doesn't work, ask me again at my Talk page, but please try one of those, first. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

OK then, I will suggest a change to the article. I suggest that the lede be changed in order to comply with NPOV:

A trans woman or a transgender woman is an adult who has a female gender identity but was assigned male at birth.

I've never read or heard anything that would conflict with this formulation, as opposed to the status quo, which often conflicts with what I read. It's objectively true. It's consistent with the rest of the article. I don't see how it could offend anyone. 24.20.73.137 (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How is the word "adult" so useful here?? The only way it seems relevant to understanding transgenderism is if there were a fact that you can't be transgender until you're 18. Is this considered true by some people?? (More importantly, somebody please read the section of this talk page just below this one.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Georgia guy women are adults, and trans women are women, therefore trans women are adults. I think it's called the transitive property or something. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We had an RfC on a slight word order variation of this proposed rewording back in November 2022. That RfC was well attended and thoroughly discussed, and as noted in the closing that both the current version of the lead and the proposed replacement were reasonable and backed by sources, and that there was no policy based argument that "tipped the scales one way or another". The NPOV policy was brought up several times during that RfC, and so accounted for in that closure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

From an ontological perspective, the first statement and the link to the corresponding Wikipedia entry on “woman” is a contradiction. Saying that a trans woman “is a woman” who has a “male sex,” and yet stating that a woman is “an adult female human” are contrary. The reason is that it then follows that “a trans woman is an adult female human who has a male sex.” This is closer to the definition of a hermaphrodite, if anything. This is close enough to a logical error to warrant being fixed, and it can be done without bigotry.

My suggestion is, “A trans woman is a person who was registered as male at birth and who lives and identifies themselves as a woman.” Very clear, simple, precise and correct. 45.42.157.72 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The first sentence has been debated extensively, so you'd need to establish a consensus among editors for this wording first. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article doesn't say that a trans woman has a “male sex,” but that they are assigned male at birth. Furthermore, what is said on "Woman" is irrelevant to this article since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even if it were, "Female" includes: In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it says “assigned male at birth”, just to avoid saying that their sex at birth was male. As humans cannot change their sex, it remains male, even if the sexual organs are modified.

By the way, in the sentence “the word female can ALSO be used to refer to gender”, the word “also” means that the primary meaning of female refers to sex. A person born with male genitalia belongs to the male sex, regardless of their gender identity. Jorgebox4 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it says “assigned male at birth”, just to avoid saying that their sex at birth was male. – because that is the standard way of talking about sex assignment. I don't think your registered is any better – it's definitely not as widely used as the current one. who lives and identifies themselves as a woman just seems like a roundabout way to avoid calling trans women women, which I think is the majority view among relevant, reliable sources. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It can be 1000 to 1, those sources are not reliable if they lead to inconsistencies. In virtually all sources, a penis is a male sexual organ, the testes are the male gonads, and spermatozoa are the male gametes; a person with all three would belong undoubtedly to the male sex, but according to this page, this individual would be a female if their gender identity is female. Jorgebox4 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It can be 1000 to 1, those sources are not reliable if they lead to inconsistencies. – wrong. On Wikipedia we summarize sources, rather than doing original research about what seems logical and what not. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You forgot the bit about “reliable”. If 2 sources contradict themselves, both can’t be reliable at the same time. Jorgebox4 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course they can; they just disagree. In that case we look to WP:NPOV and follow the view that is most common among reliable sources, while representing minority views with due weight according to their prominence. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be very fine, but in the article only the view that trans women are women, with trans being an adjective, is represented. Other views, minority if you want, are not represented at all. We should include “a trans woman is a person assigned male at birth with a female gender identity”, or even “a trans woman is a biological male with a female gender identity”. With sex and gender being different things, they don’t need to align in trans people. Jorgebox4 (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We're having a highly related conversation about use of "male" in reference to sex and gender here: Talk:Man#What is a man? Born25121642 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Lede Sentence Wording

The lede sentence has been discussed a lot, and consensus has already been established.

That being said, I think it could be improved from where it is now, in a slightly new way. Rationale: The term "male" as used to describe "assigned male at birth" in the lede does indeed refer to sex assignment at birth, but the term "male" is also used in some contexts to refer to gender. As it is now, some readers who are not familiar with the terms AMAB and AFAB may read that as "assigned to the male gender" at birth, which I believe is incorrect.

I believe it is in the best interest of editors and readers alike to have clear wording. So, I propose we change the lede to:

"A trans woman or a transgender woman is a woman whose sex was assigned male at birth."

This males it clear that when we refer to "male", we mean sex, and not gender in this context. There was a similar conversation opened a couple of weeks ago at Talk:Man that goes into some of the details on use of the terms "male" and "female" in reference to gender and sex.

I also opened a similar discussion yesterday at Talk:Trans man#Lead change about the same thing. Born25121642 (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, in cisnormative society, sex and gender assignment are inseparable. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

wdym? Born25121642 (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

People are assigned a sex based on the way their body looks, which then informs the expectations (gender) placed on them. You can't separate one from the other. I could go on about the reductiveness of the sex-gender dichotomy all day ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sex and gender are often used as synonyms, but I believe most sources, even very recent ones, make a distinction between sex and gender, such as here: [1] *Edited. Born25121642 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you implying that if someone’s sex was assigned male at birth, it can change to female after birth?

what about a person with a penis and testes that produce sperm as an adult, as humans don’t produce sperm at birth? Which sex assignment would apply? Jorgebox4 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Jorge, it isn't the job of other editors to educate you. Read sex assignment and transsexual please. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So I ask about assigned sex in adults and you keep talking about assigned sex at birth, that’s what the link you sent is about. Jorgebox4 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving this article? WP:NOTFORUM. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Because sex is real, and relevant, not assigned randomly at birth not to be mentioned ever again. The lede has been contested for years because it focuses exclusively on woman as gender, otherwise it wouldn’t say “a trans woman is a woman…” it should state that is compatible to have a male sexed body and a female gender identity. Jorgebox4 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on your comments here and on your talk page I do not believe you are acting in good faith. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Funcrunch (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok yup, "peak trans" is channer speak. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I wondered what that meant...thought it was just a typo. Turns out its got a wiktionary entry, though it doesn't much clarify things [2] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

From my experience it tends to be used for instances of "the transes going too far" (queer people existing) which causes someone (most commonly in the user's fantasies) to "awaken" to transphobia. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t know what channer speak means. Peak trans refers to a shift to gender critical positions. Jorgebox4 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are pages and pages questioning the lede, which has stayed the same for years, so I’m not the one holding the stick here. Jorgebox4 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Since "assigned male at birth" is wikilinked, I don't think it is necessary. Editors unfamiliar with the terminology may follow the link. I know that differs from my stance on Man, but I clarify that my stance on Man is that we should include a footnote, not amend the text; further, readers don't actually seem to be having an issue with AMAB terminology. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  ok, makes sense. Born25121642 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't how sources generally describe it, and in this context seems to be unnecessary. As I said above to someone else: The vast majority of definitions describe this aspect as "assigned male at birth". People who don't like it can only take it up with the people who write sources on this topic, since we are downstream from them and simply are to relay what WP:Reliable sources say. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Terminology

The definition currently published on the page doesn’t properly correspond to the citation, due to lacking plurality.

The listed citation uses plurals for the words “identity” and “expressions”, as well as utilizing “and/or” as opposed to just “and”.

This changes the definition, as one individual may have more than one gender identity. Also, gender expressions are not ever limited to a single expression but rather a range of expressions. As no one individual only expresses themselves in one distinct manner and no gender is defined by a singular distinct expression.

Could we thereby alter this from:

“ Transgender (commonly abbreviated as trans) is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity or gender expression are different from those typically associated with members of the sex they were assigned at birth.”

To:

” Transgender (commonly abbreviated as trans) is an umbrella term for people whose gender identit<ies> <and/>or gender expression(s) are different from those typically associated with members of the sex they were assigned at birth.” 71.247.61.216 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Think I made an editing error on the former, had not intended to cross out that last section but on add an “s” to the end of expression. 71.247.61.216 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023 I think it is not controversial at all to point out that humans are sexually dimorphic and we do not naturally have the ability to change sexes biologically. The animals that have been observed to change sex are not mammals and have different reproductive anatomies and processes that humans do not have. Therefore it follows that even if humans could change their dna their anatomy would have to completely change to the dna level and then they must inherit traits from their dna and develop into a woman, and their reproductive behavior would be vastly different. Furthermore, this proves that men who identify themselves as women are not the same as women who were born with a set of biologically inherited traits or even hermaphrodites. This is also not the same as being assigned a gender. You are give a prognosis by the doctor that the baby will be either a male or a female biologically based on identifiable traits directly linked to dna and inheritance, that can be traced back millions of years. This is not the same as arbitrarily assigning whatever gender, to then later be contradicted by the child identifying as something else. This is a clear difference in biology between trans people and cisgender people scientifically provable by a simple dna test. It is a biological truth and fact that gynandromorphism does not occur in mammals, therefore transgender people are not assigned a gender at birth, they are given a prognosis of the gender based on data. 2600:6C51:617F:260B:F858:EF31:9CBC:AB14 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC) I just would like to clarify that the biology of a trans person is the same as the biology of a cisgender person. The rules of biology are the same for everyone. 2600:6C51:617F:260B:F858:EF31:9CBC:AB14 (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dumuzid (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitional problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A trans woman is defined as a woman who was assigned male at birth. A woman is defined as an adult female human. A female is defined as an organism that produces ova (egg cells). Many trans woman do not produce ova so this definition needs to be fixed. Clemens Ley (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That many cis women also do not produce ova should suggest to you that there may be some issues with your reasoning. The problems with your argument are threefold: (1) Language is imprecise in making definitions. You can easily assert that car is a truck if you make the chain of definitions long enough. (2) Your premise "A female is defined as an organism that produces ova (egg cells)" is false. I guess you're reading the lede from our article Female but, If X then Y is not the same as If Y then X. (3) Even if it weren't based on a rhetorical trick and a false premise, we go with what the sources say. This kind of argumentation by editors is original research. CIreland (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that it follows from the definitions for trans woman, woman and female on Wikipedia, that trans-women produce eggs. So anyone that does not produce eggs is not considered to be a trans woman according to the definition on Wikipedia. However there are many people that are broadly considered trans woman that do not produce eggs. Clemens Ley (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page if you haven't already; the definition has been discussed ad nauseam. Funcrunch (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there is no truly consensus about option 1 and option 2 in Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4. And I think option 2 is a bit better because it shows the neutral view on "whether a trans woman is a woman or not?". My point is: There is a debate, one side they said "trans woman is a woman", the other side said "trans woman is NOT a woman", then the neutral point should be "trans woman is a human ... identifies as a woman". The reason why the previous discussion ended when no ground was found is because, in Wikipedia, people tended to turn it to the debate between one side and the middle point. And when there is no neutral point between a side and the middle point, those people shut the vote down. It's actually not neutral. --Kimkha (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no definitional problem, at least not one based on logic, which cannot be used to reason your way into the proper definition of a term; language simply doesn’t work that way. Fill in the blanks: 1. "You drive your car in the ______ ", and 2. "You park your car in the _______ ." Choices for both questions are: a) 'driveway', and b) 'parkway' — your answers? See the problem here? Mathglot (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think @Clemens Ley: already mentioned that the definitional problem is the conflict between trans woman and woman. Trans woman is defined based on woman, but in the woman page, the term of woman is defined in a way that ignores the concept of trans woman. It's not about common sense, it's about Wikipedia definition. The choice is clear: whether (1) we change the definition of trans woman or (2) we change the definition of woman. Your answers? Do you see the problem here? --Kimkha (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@CaptainEek: Please explain why did you close the discussion? The previous vote was unfinished, but we moved on with a status quo, which is acceptable to change at any time. Now, 5 years has passed, things could be changed. Especially when Clemens Ley explain clearly there is the conflict in the definition of both terms. It's not about the controversial things, it's only about Wikipedia definitions. I'm happy if you think we should change the definition in woman page instead, but both definitions should be synced. The discussion is just open, it's not dead btw. --Kimkha (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Kimkha This exact issue has been raised at least a dozen times, maybe more. It has been explained just as many. So continuing to discuss it wastes editor time. Go read through the archives for some cogent explanations on point. Absent some *extremely* compelling new ideas wth reliable sourcing, this discussion will simply walk in circles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Can you reference to the decision that saying no conflict of definition between trans woman and woman? I think if you make that reference in the first place when you closed it, I would not ask. Again, this discussion is about the misalignment between two pages of Wikipedia, not about the term use in the real world. I also think the issue was raised so many times because the decision was made in wrong way. If we made it inclusive, then it should not bother editor more. --Kimkha (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There is an FAQ linked near the top of the talk page. If you're on mobile, you'll need to click "Learn more about this page" to see it. Equivamp - talk 22:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Even though you are due some extra slack since you have only a couple dozen edits on en-wiki, this has been explained to you multiple times now and there is no requirement that other users here respond endlessly to your questions just because you were unhappy with the explanation. Please follow previous advice, and learn how English Wikipedia works. Further repetition of the same question in whatever guise may be seen to be disruptive. Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One more comment to reply Equivamp: I did check the FAQ, there is nothing I can find regarding this matter. To me, Wikipedia itself is a reliable source, that's why we use internal links to redirect users around. If Wikipedia page is not a reliable source, then we should do something about that. Seems like you guys don't like that way, it's also fine to me. And I also want to raise the voice that the discussion should only be closed with a sufficient and clear reason, which is why we should add the direct reference to the previous discussion about the conflict of definitions. But seems like you guys happy with the ambiguous reason as well. Now, we can close. --Kimkha (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Kimkha, have you read the article Sex–gender distinction? That might help to explain the apparent discrepancy here. – bradv 02:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is most certainly not a reliable source, and that might help to explain it as well. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's let things cool down a bit since the last RFC on this topic. Often in scientific fields, there can be multiple definitions of a word. It could be the case that on wikipedia we can't find a single definition of the word Woman, as it relates to these topics. In my humble opinion, I think Mathglot has the right idea regarding this topic and even I'm unlikely to vote for something like option 2. Theheezy (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sex and gender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article claims that trans women are women because of their gender identity, which is female, while mentioning their sex only as assigned male at birth. No explanation is provided about why would anyone’s sex be assigned as male, as it was random. My question is, do humans have a sex, undoubtedly male or female in most cases, not only at birth, but during all our lives, regardless of being assigned or not? For me it’s obvious that this wording is just about avoiding to say that trans women were born as babies of the male sex. If sex and gender are different things, both could be stated in the definition. Jorgebox4 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Please read through the related discussions on this talk page and in the FAQ highlighted at the top if you haven't already. Funcrunch (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but the bulk of the discussion and most of the polls are about the wording of the definition, if it’s a woman or a person, not about their sex. Jorgebox4 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of definitions describe this aspect as "assigned male at birth". People who don't like it can only take it up with the people who write sources on this topic, since we are downstream from them and simply are to relay what WP:Reliable sources say. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No,"assigned male at birth" is simply scientifically wrong. Most humans are conceived with genetically either male or female sex (XY or XX) which cannot be changed. This strange leftist construct should not be used because it is unscientific . OTOH, sociologists agree that gender is a social construct so that is scientifically correct. Tyrerj (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Sociologists and biologists (e.g., Anne Fausto-Sterling) are the ones who came up with sex assignment at birth... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The whole article falls apart once you click the word woman and see what characteristics define a woman: "XX chromosome", periods, sex differentiation in the womb, reproductive organs, mitochondrial DNA transfer. Those "assigned" as men cannot do any of those things, therefore referring to the "woman" article, does that also need to be amended to remove any references to these things that people assigned as men cannot do? NotoriousPyro (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Those are not characteristics that define a woman, those are characteristics that some women can have.

Some cis women do not have periods. Some cis women do not have XX chromosomes. Some cis women do not have 'female' reproductive organs or are infertile. Saying that these are characteristics that define what is a woman is point blank false, because not all women have them. Samwightt (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plurality of article name

Okay this is minor but wouldn't it make more sense for the article title to be "Trans women" (plural) ? Trans women is used used throughout the article, and the article is about trans women, not just a trans woman; i.e it's talking about trans women in general, not just a singular one.

Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SINGULAR. Equivamp - talk 08:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) apparently "Articles on groups or classes of specific things." should be plural, applies to trans women. Like pages on groups of people are pluralized, in like Hindus, French people, Belgians, etc. So I think it makes sense for this to be plural too, no? A Socialist Trans Girl 11:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But we don't pluralize woman or man, or boy or girl. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should due to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), unless there's another reason why we shouldn't. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a case for it (and precedent, in the case of gay men), but it's not immediately clear that the same standard for religious, national, or ethnic groupings of people also applies to this topic. Humans of a particular gender (trans woman), profession (firefighter), class (billionaire) all exist in the plural and can be described as a group/demographic, but I'm not sure at what point the demographic itself is the topic of the article. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Well WP:PLURAL does say "There are two main types of exceptions to this rule: Articles on groups or classes of specific things. Some examples:..." which trans women is a group of people, and the things listed below are mere examples, so therefore according to the guideline we should have it be plural. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we maybe do an RFC because it appears that according to policy, this and some other articles should be plural. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" oxymoron

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The very first sentence of this article is a textbook oxymoron, and is very confusing. Simply hovering your cursor over the internal link to the woman article defines a woman as an "adult female human". One cannot simultaneously be both "assigned male at birth" (i.e. male) and an "adult human female", this implies that an individual is both male and female, and these two sexual categories are mutually exclusive barring exceptionally rare genetic anomalies. A male cannot by definition be female, and thus can neither be a woman, meaning this necessitates a rewrite. I suggest wording that is more neutral and logically coherent, something along the lines of: "A trans woman is a male that self-identifies as female." or "A trans woman is male that self-identifies as a woman." 47.219.237.179 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Please justify any desired changes by citing reliable sources, rather than your own original research. A collection of such sources is given at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. Per the article female, the term can refer to either an individual's sex or gender (the "adult female human" sentence of Woman includes this fact as an explanatory footnote). Additionally, many transgender bodies do not neatly fit into a binary sex category (due to gender affirming care or intersex conditions), so "male" here (in addition to being an offensive dogwhistle) would be inaccurate. Lastly, "self-identifies as" expresses doubt around the validity of trans identity; sources predominantly prefer either "has a female gender identity" or simply "is a woman". Note that this observation has been made numerous times on this discussion page in the past decade, and often leads to the same few arguments being repeated, to the exhaustion of many. The current wording is the result of two Requests for Comment (a well-attended discussion on Wikipedia with the goal of generating a strong and "definitive" consensus). Each RfC found no consensus whether to change the lede to something else, so another RfC (hopefully accompanied by novel and policy-backed reasoning) would be necessary to change it. If this article interests you, I invite you to peruse its archives to see the various (often lengthy) ways this same discussion has played out in the past. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"sexual reassignment therapy" vs "cross-sex hormonal therapy"

I changed the former to the latter here; it got reverted when DanielRigal reverted to the status quo ante. I believe it's correct for the reasons I stated in my summary ("'sexual reassignment therapy' is ambiguous (surgery or hormones?); the article cited includes only people on hormone therapy. The article uses the term 'cross-sex hormonal therapy', so I use that instead.")

Is there any objection to using "cross-sex hormonal therapy" (or some other phrase) instead of the less descriptive "sexual reassignment therapy"? — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe "gender-affirming hormonal therapy" would be closer to the current language used for this by MEDRS and relevant clinical guidelines. It would certainly be more in line with the move/rename of gender-affirming surgery from November 2022. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion on this right now. I was reverting to the status-quo for other reasons. It was not because I have any objection to this particular change. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner

Caitlyn Jenner is one of the country’s most recognizable trans women but she doesn’t appear in the Trans women in the media section. are there any reasons why she is not included? isadora of ibiza (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already added. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 01:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That DSM-V-TR quote

As I said, this is, by its own accounts, "under consideration", not proven (or even having apparent evidence), and IMO does not warrant placement in the article given its speculative nature, as there is no indication that there is any sort of scientific consensus that this is in fact a predisposing factor.

I note for Lifetrance that their statement "The onus is on you to demonstrate that it somehow *doesn't* belong here." is wrong. Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

All that being said, I welcome other opinions to help resolve this dispute. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, the theory needs far more acceptance before it is included here. --John B123 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is specious, as you have not cited any source other than your glib interpretation of the edit. The wording of the DSM-V-TR is unambiguous, and it reflects the broad scientific (and consequently evidence-based) consensus for the etiology of trans women. Stating that there is "no apparent evidence" merely betrays personal ignorance. An editor "not liking" or "disagreeing" with something doesn't constitute a lack of consensus. Formal consensus is a body of assertions backed by evidence, and this dispute is thus far nothing but noise, lending me to believe that you may be seeking to suppress information for ideological reasons. Lifetrance (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. While it's verifiably in the DSM-5-TR, it's pretty clear from the text that it's not a confirmed predisposition. It's also telling that the corresponding ICD 11 entry has no similar exclusions, having deprecated transvestic disorder and never having had an entry for autogynephilia. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "confirmation" in science, merely evidence. The existing evidence suggests that autogynephilia is fundamental to the etiology of much of MtF gender transition. There isn't credible evidence for *any other theory* for MtF etiology than that of Blanchard's typology. It is disputed, assuredly, and hence the "under consideration" wording. But there is a striking vacuum for any other evidence-based theory of MtF etiology.

Etiology, even tentative, is critically important. Suppressing our best scientific understanding of the phenomenon of trans women, as reflected by the DSM, is transparently ideological. Lifetrance (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This stuff is borderline fringe. I think you already know that. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the fringe authority of the 2022 DSM-V-TR. It's not even sophistry if your assertions are transparently mendacious.

On a meta-level, if this is the best that the "opposing" side can do, my edit should obviously be accepted. This is embarrassing. Can an adult in the room resolve this? Lifetrance (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, we have an article on Blanchard's typology and we know that it is in no way mainstream, as do you. My understanding is that the DSM acknowledges the existence of the proposed typology without endorsing it. We are not going to rewrite a whole article about a group of people just to conform to a non-mainstream hypothesis that you personally find appealing. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article you linked demonstrates that opposite of what you think it does. It shows that Blanchard's typology continues to be the dominant (and only) non-fringe explanation for the etiology of MtF trans women. As you can read in the article you that you generously linked, Blanchard's typology has continued to amass evidentiary support with 2016 and 2021 neuroimaging studies. In fact, *all* available reputable evidence supports Blanchard's typology, with only minor nitpicking from fellow scientists! That's why it has survived for so long, and why it is present in transgender etiology in the 2022 DSM. Bad theories don't have long lives in science. Shall we nevertheless inspect what counter-evidence for Blanchard's typology exists? There was a "study" by the physician Charles Moser, which amounted to a survey of 29 nurses, and which was published in an obscure journal. This physician, Charles Moser, believes that pedophilia should be removed from the DSM, since a paraphilia designation creates a "negative value judgment"; i.e. we ought not judge pedophilia negatively. His opinions and his scientific standing is, to understate the matter, fringe. He is not credible. A more credible detracting study was performed by Larry Nuttbrock, et al. However, it largely *agreed* with Blanchard's typology, and it merely posited that MtF etiology ought also include racial and age factors. However, even this nitpicking was thoroughly refuted by a (more prominent, and indeed trans woman) sexologist: http://unremediatedgender.space/papers/lawrence-a_validation_of_blanchard.pdf What about Julia Serano, perhaps the noisiest of Blanchard detractors? She is not a practicing scientist, nor was she ever a sexologist! She is an activist, and her opinions are irrelevant in terms of establishing scientific consensus. What else? That's it! Unless you dig deep into the most obscure of journals, you'll find no more credible and scientific "counter-evidence" to Blanchard's typology. The idea that Blanchard's typology is discredited is patently false. It's alive, well, and has been recently vindicated by neuroimaging studies. It represents the one and only working theory for the etiology of trans women, and thus it is critically important to understanding trans women, as well as abundantly appropriate for inclusion in this article! On a meta level, it *should not be the case* that I need demonstrate that I'm versed on a topic, to an audience of uninformed laypeople, in order to edit a Wikipedia article. We are supposed to be, as Wikipedia editors, vessels for credible authorities, not ourselves experts in a field (though we might be). My expertise shouldn't matter: the fact that I cited the DSM, one of the most powerful proxies you'll find for scientific consensus for sexology, should be the end of the issue. My having to go through a "trial of ideologues" on the Talk page is absurd, wrong, and bad for Wikipedia. Those who reverted my edits should probably be banned, as they cannot substantiate any of their positions from credible authorities, and they are (universally?? See their User pages) trans activists who spout the most absurd of sophistry in order to pursue their agenda. These ideologues want to paint a certain picture of trans women for Wikipedia visitors: trans women are women, and autogynephilia doesn't exist, much to the surprise of transvestites. Nobody who is not themselves a tran activist wants this: the absolute governance of Wikipedia articles by uninformed ideologues. All of the rest of us want to find on Wikipedia articles a *distillation and reflection of credible sources*. Nothing more and nothing less. The only preventative measure for ideological censorship is for us, when an edit is SOURCED from a credible authority and relevant to the article, to accept it! Allowing people to say, "No no, even though you've credibly sourced information, you need to establish consensus with US (the ideologues) first. Let us lambast you with our sophistry and never give you consensus," has a predictable outcome: gang rule by ideologues. When "no consensus" can be weaponized, as it has on this article, sourced information from credible authorities must be given special privilege. Lifetrance (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Frozen contentious statement in lead

The assertion that "a trans woman is a woman" is contentious. One can easily verify that by viewing the endless battle over the lead.

By virtue of the RfC achieving "no consensus", the lead has defaulted to its "original" wording.

However, the original lead was in fact "Transwomen are transsexual or transgendered people ... ". Thus, the "default to the original" policy has been incorrectly applied!

To correctly apply the default-to-the-original policy, the lead should read "A trans woman is a **person** who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender identity." Beneath many years of contention, the original statement was "person", and thus Proposal 2 of the latest RfC accurately defaults to the original wording on the core point of contention: "woman" versus "person".

More broadly, this issue reflects a deep, underlying problem. One can imagine that an ideologically motivated group could babysit a Wikipedia entry to ensure that a contentious statement which favors their ideology remains in place. After they managed to sneak a contentious statement onto an article, they could use "no consensus" as a mechanism to enshrine that contentious statement for eternity.

What can be done about that? In situations of endless and fruitless debate, we should abandon "ideal" edits, and instead favor edits that are *less contentious*. For a RfC, instead of polling whether editors "support" one edit over another (cue endless tribal warfare), editors should be polled on which edit exhibits "greater neutrality". This will *not* lead to false balance, provided that "no consensus" has first been reached, since a "no consensus" designation on Wikipedia requires that both sides not only disagree, but have a reasonably balanced body of evidence to support their positions, as well. A neutral statement is therefore not false balance; it's something resembling *actual* balance: neutrality in the face of epistemological uncertainty.

In fact, "no consensus" on an RfC directly indicates that it is *imperative* to find a less tendentious statement, since the current statement is evidently not neutral in the eyes of credible sources! It's not an established truth!

In terms of procedure, an RfC should first poll for Support for competing edit proposals. If "No Consensus" results, a RfC should then poll for which edit is merely "less contentious". If consensus cannot be achieved over which edit is less contentious, an admin should use their discretion. This would resolve the "frozen contentious statements" problem, moving edits toward neutrality in the absence of consensus among credible sources.

I will be reverting the lead to reflect the *correct* original wording, "a trans woman is a person". If someone wants to raise an RfC to find a more *neutral* / *less contentious* edit, please do so. Myself, I think it's fine: it's neutral. And regardless, we must honor Wikipedia policy regarding "no consensus": the original designation underneath all the dead horses was "Transwomen are people", not "A trans woman is a woman". Therefore, "person" is the appropriate default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifetrance (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you're not going to just bounce in here and unilaterally decide on the "correct" wording for the lead. Get consensus first. Funcrunch (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't decide the correct wording. I correctly applied Wikipedia policy, which favors original wording in the case of "No Consensus", which is "person". You have it backward: you would need to achieve consensus to change the wording to "a trans woman is a woman". Lifetrance (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how things work when there is no consensus, see WP:NOCON. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia policy is When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit - see WP:NOCONSENSUS. Nothing about 'original wording'. --John B123 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Per the RfC close, In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As I asked below, should we allow a person to make a contentious edit and induce such a stink from it that a RtC is eventually requested? And then, should we keep their contentious edit after consensus isn't achieved?

Of course not! That would allow an ideologue to make a contentious edit, immediately call for an RtC, and then do their best to prevent consensus, thereby enshrining their contentious edit for perpetuity.

It follows that what is paramount is the *pre-contention* wording, not the wording that immediately preceded the RtC. Lifetrance (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict)This seems like trolling. Maybe that is not the intent but to just breeze in here and just demand that we refame the whole subject is not the kind of bold that WP:BOLD has in mind.

I'm not sure where this claim of an "original wording" comes from but if you check the state of the article as it was at the start of this year you will see that the start of the lede was similar to what we have now, not what you claim to be the "original version".

Anyway, the proposed change is definitely not an improvement. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I was confused over which RfC we were talking about but I've found it now. It was from August of last frickin' year and we recently celebrated the one year anniversary of its closure. That RfC was re-litigating an RfC from 2018. I think we are having our time wasted here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct, this issue has been repeatedly litigated. This has been the case *ever since the article declared that trans women were women*! The only time of non-dispute was the original wording, with transwomen as "people".

You can see the original RtC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans_woman/Archive_4

Should we allow a person to make a contentious edit and induce such a stink from it that a RtC is eventually requested, then keep their contentious edit after consensus isn't achieved?

Of course not! That would allow an ideologue to make a contentious edit, immediately call for an RtC, and then do their best to prevent consensus, thereby enshrining their contentious edit for perpetuity.

It follows that what is paramount is the *pre-contention* wording, not the wording that immediately preceded the RtC. Lifetrance (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"pre-contention" here means 2018? So... it wasn't controversial until it was? So... whoever gets in first gets to demand that their version sticks forever, or at least as long as anybody still insists on it? Even after a new status-quo is firmly established you feel that it is acceptable to revert back several years to your preferred version? I'm sorry, but this is hard to take seriously. If that were a correct interpretation of our policies then all articles on contentious subjects would be reverted to their initial versions on a regular basis and Wikipedia could never move forward at all. It does seem like you must, or at least should, know this. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are yanking our chains here.

Now, I don't know who wrote the current version of the first sentence, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time digging around in the 2018 edit history to find out, but I don't appreciate the aspersions being cast on the unnamed editor who wrote that correct and reasonable text as an "ideologue".

The only thing even slightly questionable about the current wording is that, for most fair minded readers, it reads as a tautology. On a first glance, it might seem redundant to make a statement of the form "(Type of woman) is a woman who is (description of the type)." For example, it would be weird to say "A black woman is a woman who is black" but, ironically, you yourself are making the argument that makes this seeming tautology absolutely necessary in this case. By coming in here and aggressively inducing a stink just because you personally do not accept that trans women are a type of women you demonstrate that there are a small proportion of readers who are not already clear on this point and that, for them, this is not a tautology and that it does need to be stated explicitly so that they can understand the rest of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I would reevaluate who is being "aggressive". All I see here is juvenile name calling, baseless allegations, and sophomoric ideological ranting. I think that you've said your piece, such as it is. It's clear that you have an agenda. There are other outlets for that; please don't spam the Talk section of Wikipedia. Lifetrance (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you own a mirror? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Every lead sentence of this article will be contentious, because the article is contentious, and likely will for a long time; there is no getting around that. The question for us, as editors, is to attempt to discover wording that can achieve consensus. That's been done in the past, and for a contentious topic, the lead sentence has been remarkably stable, having hardly changed from versions one, two, or even three years ago. That represents a fair amount of consensus. If you want to try to overturn that, that's your right, but awareness of the history and what's happened in previous Rfc's means that it won't be easy.

There's also a lot (*really* a lot!) of previous discussion about this, and discussion tends to go around in circles, with a lot of previous objections or suggestions coming up again and again. Have a read through some of the archives, and you'll see what I mean. If after all that you feel like you have a new angle that might be persuasive, or if you think that things have changed, or new sources are available that challenge the current formulation of the lead, that would be a good place to start.

Please do not revert the lead sentence based on your own opinion, or on an interpretation of consensus that appears not to have support here; think about this: if that were the right approach, some editor would have already done at some point in the last three years and it would have prevailed, but that has not been the case. Again, you're welcome to try to find support here among other editors for your views, but at such a contentious article, just charging into the lead sentence and changing it is never going to work. Discussion here is the route to significant changes of that sort. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mathglot. My argument, however, was *not* that the lead ought be changed, because it is better or less contentious. My argument is twofold:

1) The original wording was "person". I cited that fact. The intention of the "default to the original" policy is to avoid tendentious edits, which fail to achieve consensus, from being accepted. The tendentious edit was here was "a trans woman is a woman", as evidenced by the endless arguments about it. Meanwhile, the original wording with "person" is not credibly tendentious: it did not create a failure of consensus. It is therefore the appropriate edit both by the "default to the original" policy and the fact that it is (obviously) more neutral.

2) Consensus for the "ideal/preferred" edit ought be abandoned after "No Consensus". We should have a new RtC that instead seeks for the "most neutral / least contentious" edit, which will respect the reality of the etymological uncertainty demonstrated by failed consensus. Until then, we should default the neutral wording of "person", per the original wording and Wikipedia policy. Lifetrance (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

To address the creative interpretation of WP:NOCON, the current lede wording was added in August 2016, to relatively little fanfare. By the time of the 2018 RfC, this was most certainly the status quo, and was correctly considered such by closers of the RfC. Regardless, we're not going to rehashing a decades worth of discussion over of a purported procedural error (WP:BUREAU), and such an upheaval would still require consensus.

Surfing the archives for contemporary pre-RfC discussions, you can find multiple megabytes of discussion on this subject, displaying clear local consensus in favor of the status quo. The vast majority of dissent (i.e. proposing a change to a is a person phrasing) in these earlier discussions came from a small handful of very prolific editors.

• February 2017 – Talk:Trans woman/Archive 5 § Contradicts the articles "woman" and "female"
• June 2017 – § Recent change to the lead sentence
• June 2018 – § Lead section, one more time and § Lead section: summary
• June 2018 – Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 72 § Definition of "trans woman"
• August 2018 – § RfC on introduction

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 09:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2023

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: not moved (non-admin closure). There is a consensus here against making this article an exception to WP:PLURAL when its most commonly-related articles are predominantly in the singular. As some have noted, it may be worthwhile to have a broader discussion about this full range to see if they should all be made an exception to WP:PLURAL the same way that e.g. national and religious groupings are. Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Trans woman → Trans women – While WP:PLURAL states that In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles, it lists Articles on groups or classes of specific things. as an exception, and groups of people are listed as examples (such as Hindus and Belgians). There is the precedent in articles such as Gay men, which is especially relevant as it follows the same format of "[Queer identity adjective] [gender]". And while articles like Woman, Man, etc are in the singular, for the aforementioned reason(s) they should also be plural, though that's subject for discussion in those respective articles. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have also found the current naming to be slightly strange. I agree with the reasons given and I support this change. The policy exception to singular naming is a wise one and should be applied consistently to articles about groups of people. Just imagine if our article on Jews was just called "Jew", for example...

That said, I'm not sure whether this should be discussed article by article, risking ongoing inconsistencies, or whether it should be approached more systematically. I think that an equivalent move request is needed on Trans man as a minimum but we might need to go further than that. There is a strong case that this article's naming should follow that of the Woman article and only be renamed once that has been renamed. I agree that that should be renamed to "Women" but I also fear that that would be a far harder task to achieve. I am not sure where the best place to raise that would be but I am pretty sure that Talk:Woman would be worst. I've only tried to wade in there a couple of times and I think it might be one of the worst Talk pages on the entire site for getting bogged down in BS and never agreeing on anything.

So, what is the best way to take this forward so that it can be discussed systematically and, if agreed, all affected articles can be renamed consistently? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SINGULAR and WP:CONSISTENT. The main Woman article uses singular title, so this one should as well. The "Gay men" title being plural is controversial, as there was no consensus on what the title should be in the RM discussion on that title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SINGULAR allows for, even encourages, exceptions in exactly this sort of case but I can see the point about consistency. How would you feel about changing all of Woman, Man, Trans woman and Trans man (and maybe some others) consistently? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is the type of exception that WP:SINGULAR encourages. WP:PLURAL lists specific exceptions to our general rule of using singular titles, and this is not one of them. For groups of people, it lists religious, national, or ethnic groupings of people as the exceptions. Last time I checked, "trans women" are not a religious, national, or ethnic group. And trying to say that "trans women" should be the title because it is an "Article on groups or classes of specific things" is like saying that "elephants" or "trees" are groups or classes of specific things. So all of our articles on plants and animals should be moved to a plural title under this logic. Even inanimate objects like "chairs" or "houses" would need to be moved under this line of thinking, as they too can be viewed as "groups or classes of specific things". The exception would become the norm. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:PLURAL lists religious, national, or ethnic groupings as examples (it says “Here are some examples:”) the phrasing of which, saying “some” and “examples” explicitly says that it’s not an exhaustive list, but just some of them. Also elephants and trees aren’t people. It might (I don’t know though) be different plural system for when the noun is preceded by an adjective. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Scientist(s) are people, as are Mathematician(s), Plumber(s), Astronaut(s), etc. And by a noun preceded by an adjective, I assume you mean something like First lady. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay but those aren’t demographics of people. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

i think a useful rule-of-thumb here would be the “draw a ____” test. if it makes sense to talk about a concept in the singular, then you should be able to provide a comprehensive, non-controversial description of that concept.

an Elephant obviously passes the “draw an elephant test”. you can describe a generic elephant. it is gray, it is wrinkly, it has a long trunk, it is big, et cetera.

this is orthogonal to demographics of people. an Astronaut has a helmet, she is floating in zero gravity, she wears a space suit, she is holding an American Flag, she is waving hello to a green alien, et cetera, et cetera. you can describe a generic astronaut, even though an astronaut is a person.

i do not think you can describe a “generic trans woman” in a way that would not be offensive to at least some subset of trans women. trans women do not pass the “draw a trans woman” test.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The current article seems to do just fine with a singular title without being offensive. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

that is because the current article does not mention any defining characteristics of trans women other than the fact that they are a different gender than the one they were born with. it could not possibly mention any additional defining characteristics because there are none. this should be a clue that the concept of a trans woman is not a very useful one.

instead, most of the article’s content discusses statistics and things that often happen to trans women as a group. this should be an indicator that the concept of trans women is more useful than the concept of a trans woman.

finally, in case there was a misunderstanding, i just want to emphasize that this is not an “i’m offended so everything i say is right and ur a bigot” complaint. the phrase trans woman is not offensive to me, i just think that it is not useful for an encyclopedia article. for a lighter analogy, i would point out that we have an article for Swifties and not Swiftie, because it is not useful to discuss the concept of a Swiftie in the singular.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and analysis by DanielRigal. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the exact same reasons as Rreagan007. The gay men article is not a precedent, and the gender articles have always been singular. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how it’s not a precedant?

It's not a precedent because there was no consensus on whether that title should be singular or plural in the RM discussion for that title. There would only be precedential value if that discussion had achieved consensus. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s precedential in the sense of other articles having the same title format. A Socialist Trans Girl 00:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's true that it does currently exist as a title, but it's there by default because when a discussion fails to achieve consensus the status quo remains. But there is no consensus that other similar articles should be moved to match its format, so in that sense it doesn't have precedential value for this particular RM discussion. And I personally think that it should be moved to Gay man, but that's a discussion for a different time. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

But there is no consensus that other similar articles should be moved to match its format What are those other similar articles which have the format of "[queer adjective] [gender noun]"? I'm not sure there's a large sample size.

Regardless of if there is pre-established consensus precedent, that precedent has to start somewhere. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason of “the gender articles have always been singular.” it absolutely improper. If that was a valid reason for opposition then it could be used to stop any change on wikipedia that had not been done and changed back to before. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, because the singular title suggests that trans women are an archetype, such as a Cat lady, a Town crier, or an It girl. there is, of course, nothing wrong with being an archetype, but it is not really a useful lens through which to discuss a highly diverse group of people who only share a common identity grouping. therefore i think that the “national or ethnic group” precedent is the more appropriate one to apply, even if strictly speaking, trans women are not a country. isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the exception is only for religious, national, or ethnic groupings of people, and trans women are none of those three things. If you want a more general exception, go discuss it over at the talk page for WP:PLURAL. But invented rules like the "could you draw that?" test above simply aren't relevant: there is a real test, it is in the policy, and that test is whether the group is religious, national, or ethnic. Loki (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Loki I think you may have misread WP:PLURAL, it says "Articles on groups or classes of specific things. Some examples: ..." then lists articles on religious, national, or ethnic groupings of people as one of the examples, it's not a complete list. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm aware of that wording. I'm just reading it differently than you do. While it's not a complete list, there's no reason to believe that this particular case is an exception.

  "Trans woman" is not inherently a group or class of thing. No more than cats, toasters, apples, or dentists, or any number of things I could name where we have a singular article when the way you're reading it we "should" have a plural. Loki (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Loki can you explain what you mean by 'Trans women' not being a group/demographic of people? A Socialist Trans Girl 02:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, "trans woman" is not a group of people. You are making it plural and then asserting because of that it fits the definition that says it should be plural. That's circular. Or to be more explicit: any noun can be pluralized, so clearly "group or class of specific thing" does not just mean "is plural".

  In fact, going through the list of examples, I think the word "specific" is more important than you're giving it credit for:

  • The article is Maxwell's equations and not Maxwell's equation because it's a set or family of specific equations. You can list the equations.
  • The article is Provinces of Sweden because it's a set of specific provinces. But the article for just the general idea is province.
  • The article is Romance languages because it's a set of specific languages that can be listed.

  In contrast, there's no way to list every trans woman any more than there is to list every woman. And the article isn't about the set of every trans woman anyway, it's about the concept of a trans woman. I think the one odd example is making people lose sight of the general rule here. Loki (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Loki This article uses "trans women" throughout, only using "trans woman" in the first sentence, to refer to individuals, and in reference to the term itself (all in italics). The article isn't about an archetype of a trans woman, or a single trans woman; it's about trans women as a group. This article is about trans women, not trans woman (Grammatically that's not possible, as 'trans woman' is an improper noun phrase which requires an article preceding it).

  In contrast, there's no way to list every trans woman any more than there is to list every woman. That also applies to Belgians, Hindus, and French people, so that's irrelevant.

  And the article isn't about the set of every trans woman anyway, it's about the concept of a trans woman. No, it's about trans women generally, not an archetype of a trans woman. This article uses the term "trans women" 39 times.

  Additionally, it being a specific set of something you can list is further countered by U.S. state (wait why is US state singular but provinces of Sweden is not? and Member of the European Parliament, which are both singular. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, it being a specific set of something you can list is further countered by U.S. state (wait why is US state singular but provinces of Sweden is not? and Member of the European Parliament, which are both singular

  I think I see where you are confused. A US state is one thing. It is a concept. The article goes into detail about what exactly a US state is. Meanwhile, provinces of Sweden is a list. A set. A group. The article has a definition but is mostly about the set of all provinces. You could have such an article for the US: in fact we do, it's called List of states and territories of the United States.

  Similarly Member of the European Parliament is singular because it's not List of members of the European Parliament (2019–2024). A member is a concept; the article is only pluralized if it's specifically about the set of all members.

  The article isn't about an archetype of a trans woman, or a single trans woman; it's about trans women as a group.

  No, it is about an archetype, or I'd call it a concept. That concept is "trans woman". Not an archetype of a trans woman, "trans woman" is itself the archetype. The same way you can have an article about dentist or athlete or author.

  There are multiple people who are all of these things but that doesn't mean the article dentist is about the set of all dentists. No, it's about what a dentist is.

  That also applies to Belgians, Hindus, and French people, so that's irrelevant.

  Exception that proves the rule there: Belgians, if you read it, really is about the set of all Belgians. If you want to know what a Belgian is, then you want the article on Belgium.

  There's no article on feminists or capitalists or vegetarians; those articles all redirect to the ideology, which proves my point.

  This article uses the term "trans women" 39 times.

  So? Just because a noun can be pluralized does not mean that WP:PLURAL applies to it. That is in fact the whole point. Loki (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  one can derive great entertainment value merely by answering the question: what if we did this for everyone?

  the complement of a trans woman is a cis woman. but we do not have an article titled cis woman; it redirects to cisgender. why don’t we have an article about the archetype of a cis woman?

  isadora of ibiza (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  for context, this discussion appears to be where the consensus for that exception originated. that consensus did not contain any conclusion that the “names of peoples” list was meant to be exhaustive. i feel that interpreting that consensus to mean that “names of peoples” must be tied to a skin color or an organized faith would be putting the letter of the rule over the spirit of the rule. trans women are a quasi-national grouping, it is a strange truth of how some of us view ourselves.

  it is really not necessary to debate the cardinality of trans women or the importance of wiki precedent. we should apply the national groupings exception because the rationale from which it was codified can also be used to reach this conclusion.

  isadora of ibiza (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT, as this article should match the style of Woman, Trans man, and Man. I would be more likely to favor an RM that sought to pluralize all of those, as well as any similar subarticles. I think the comparison to Gay men misses the most relevant connections. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Woman and Man are not reasons to invoke WP:CONSISTENT because women are a superset of trans women. but Trans man certainly is; this is an excellent point.

  since this proposal seems likely to default to no-move, i encourage A Socialist Trans Girl to withdraw this request and propose a new one that would harmonize the titles of the relevant pages to:

  Woman (no change)

  Cis women (currently has no article)

  Trans women

  Man (no change)

  Cis men

  Trans men

  isadora of ibiza (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Consistency with a parent article is one of the most common considerations, so I'm not sure why you would discount supersets. I'm also trying to address the WP:PLURAL points made above: if gender categories are to be covered by the "groupings of people" exception, we should be consistent in applying that rule. Articles like Girl and Boy as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nominations and per comments by isadoraofIbiza. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Isadora's arguments are compelling enough. Based on the Wikipedia policy, WP:IAR, which states If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (I view this proposal as an improvement). (Why, it's almost as if an argument that focuses arbitrarily on subjective standards is itself... arbitrary),05:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) As for consistency, I think that we should also have a discussion to include the pages above as well. If consistency is a reason to oppose this move, we can fix that. ASUKITE 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. In general we prefer singulars, and I'm not really convinced by the need to do anything different here. Like woman and man, this describes individuals and as noted above they are linked by a particular gender-identity status, nothing more than that really. The same goes for trans man etc, cis man etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the title, not on those who wish to retain it, and no serious policy- or guideline-based rationale has been offered for the change. Some find particular 'support' arguments "compelling", but those arguments aren't policy-based, and neither are the piggy-backed !votes. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. We use plural for ethnicities and nationalities, but rarely otherwise, and not for any other gender, sex, or similar terms. WP:SINGULAR would have to have a really compelling logical reason to override it. And WP:IAR applies when someone needs to ignore a rule to make an objective, no-brainer improvement to the encyclopedia, and this is not one, as is clear from the amount of opposition here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007, and per WP:CONSISTENCY with Woman, Girl, Man, etc. As Loki said, if someone wants to propose a general discussion about expanding the "religious, national, or ethnic groupings" guideline to other groupings, and then moving all the Woman, Girl, Man, Trans woman and other such pages, let them propose that in some general forum, but as long as our guidelines say to use the WP:SINGULAR and this RM is only proposing to make one title inconsistent with that, it's a no from me. -sche (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heterosexuality

The wikipedia page entitled Heterosexuality starts "Heterosexuality is [attraction] between people of the opposite sex or gender." In the context of trans gender issues, and of the section here headed Sexuality, where the article says "A survey of [...] trans women showed [...] 23% as heterosexual", this definition of heterosexuality doesn't help: are they attracted to people of the opposite sex (ie, females) or people of the opposite gender (ie, men)? Maybe the fault lies with the survey being cited, but I think a few words of clarification are called for here: namely, what heterosexual means for a trans woman. (I am not suggesting the Heterosexuality page needs changing.) So I looked up the survey, and found this "23% reported a heterosexual or opposite-gender sexual orientation" which is not much better: does it mean some of the 23% reported "opposite-gender" and some as "heterosexual"? It's not much help because the latter is still ambiguous. It could mean "heterosexual, understood to mean opposite-gender sexual orientation", but if that's what the surveyors intended, it doesn't follow that that's how the respondents responded. I make this extended comment, because the anti-trans lobby maintains that a motivation for males to transition is nefarious and misogynistic, and is clear in some who commit sexual crimes. Whether this is a small minority (possibly as small as among those who don't transition!) or part of a spectrum, might be better understood if this section headed sexuality were clearer. Nick Barnett (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The survey's first option is "Gay/lesbian/same-gender attraction", so implicitly, the third option "Heterosexuality" means opposite-gender attraction. This is in line with how transgender people overwhelmingly describe sexuality (i.e. wrt gender and not assigned sex), so I would assume respondents understood the question

I don't think clarification is needed for the survey result and might be considered original research. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm not at all clear how the anti-trans lobby and sexual crimes relate to this otherwise fairly banal terminological issue. At least as far as I can understand it, the conjecture you're raising regarding sexual orientation and sexual assault is... troubling at best. As this is a contentious topic, please keep discussion on-topic and refrain from speculation. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)