Talk:Transgender/Archive 9

Definition

I've had a go at rephrasing the definition of transgender in the first sentence of the lead section to that it is both rigorous and as neutral as possible:

Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that contradicts what would be presumed from the sex assigned at birth. Lmatt (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Second attempt:

Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that differs from the gender presumed from a person's sex assignment at birth.

Lmatt (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I see you reverted the first version I listed, could you share your thoughts on the second version? Lmatt (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The second one is better than the first, but you should get more opinions before just replacing the lead sentence. Kaldari (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken I think this second version makes more sense.

Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that contradicts the gender presumed from the sex assigned to a person at birth.

Lmatt (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The removal of "people" is not good. The use of "contradicts" is not neutral, no one is "assigned" a sex at birth. This is a mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken

• The word "people" after "transgender" needs to go because the primary topic is transgender gender identity and not "transgender people".
• The word "contradicts" is as neutral as I could think of while still expressing some kind of opposition to a transgender person's assigned gender.
• Each person with a birth certificate is given a sex at birth, perhaps the word "assigned" could be changed with something like "given". Lmatt (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lmatt, while any editor is welcome to take a stab at any part of any article, jumping in as a fairly new editor straight to the first sentence of the lead of an article about a controversial topic that has eight archived Talk pages, is a difficult thing to tackle, to say the least. The lead sentence of a controversial topic is about the very last place I'd suggest to an editor still learning the ropes. I've left a longer message about this at your Talk page. As far as continuing along this path, if that's what you choose to do, please keep in mind the policies which define the purpose of the WP:LEAD, the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, and the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, and the development sequence explained at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

More specifically: It's about gender identity, yes, but cars don't have gender identity, people do. "Contradicts" is problematic, because it's binary. And I agree with you, btw, that "assigned at birth" is the correct term. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I changed the word "differs" because I thought that implied a gender binary while the word "contradicts" not necessarily so. Someone may hold a gender identity that differs from the one culturally associated with their assigned sex, yet not consider themselves to hold a transgender identity. In any case I think "is inconsistent with" is better and more neutral wording. Lmatt (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, I see it exactly the other way round: where differs allows any number of possible alternatives (A differs from B, C, and D; not just B). Contradiction is binary; contradicts means, NOT (as in, "you say A, and I say, not-A"). Inconsistent with just seems like a longer, and more wishy-washy way of saying differs. Inconsistent with also has some in this case unfortunate associations with euphemistic expressions like inconsistent with the truth, and we don't want to have even a subliminal association with "birth certificate" and "truth"; that stabs at the core of what this is about. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. The change is not an improvement and is unnecessarily wordy. For example, why exactly is "human" needed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My last go at this:

Transgender is a gender identity or gender expression of a person that is incongruent with the gender culturally associated with their assigned sex. Lmatt (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Lmatt, the lead before you started changing it was fine; I do not see any of your changes as an improvement. As asked by others, please gain consensus on the talk page before making further changes like this. Thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected the glaring categorical error in the definition, comparing the attributes of gender identity and assigned sex and claiming they "differ" for transgender people, when logically the attributes can never differ nor are ever the same, because they are different categories. Sure, gender identity and assigned sex have a strong cultural association, so I have made this clear in the definition, similar to the lead for the Transexual article. Lmatt (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

retroactively transgender?

There seems to be a push from activists for transgender individuals to be considered as have been transgender even before they came out as TG. This raises questions for us here on WP, for example, with female to male transgender person Cidny Bullens. As "Cindy" they for example, sung It's Raining on Prom Night for the movie Grease. Now that song's lyrics are clearly written from the perspective of a CISGENDER FEMALE prom dance attendee and was sung by Bullens when they identified as a young woman, so writing that a man was singing that song is pretty damn awkward. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue of gender identity is not "a push from activists," it has been a matter of ongoing discussion among Wikipedia editors for the last 15 years: i refer you to MOS:GENDERID. It might also be helpful to look at articles for people who were notable both before and after transition, such as with Alexander James Adams; the talk page and an archive on the page document the discussion among editors on how to reflect his performance career under a different name and gender. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AbbyStein 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Cross dressing

Hi everyone! Transgender pages need to be more specific about cross-dressing. Being transgender is not a cross-dresser. This has been cited numerous times, see the reference from the Human Rights Campaign: https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-faq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physpkg (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't state or imply that being transgender means one is a cross-dresser, though, at least not automatically a cross-dresser. In the lead, it notes that "The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers." And lower in the article, "cross-dresser" is under the "Other categories" section because cross-dressers have been included under the transgender umbrella. What are you looking for us to change? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Physpkg:, Welcome to Wikipedia. Echoing and extending what Flyer22 Reborn has said. Notice also at the top of this page, that there are many older discussions that used to be on this page, and that are now archived in eight archived Talk pages. Of those, at least six of them have earlier discussions about the topic of cross-dressers or cross-dressing. When commenting here (or at any Talk page) please have a quick look at the Archives, to see if your question or topic has already been asked or addressed. Even if it's a new angle on an old topic, it can be worth a look, and maybe a link. this brief comment in Archive 6, for example, and this discussion, while wrong-headed, in Archive 5, as well as various others have touched on this topic, in different ways, before.

In addition, there is no "official keeper" of what a term means, and we rely on what the preponderance of reliable sources say on the subject, and in the case of areas like gender and transgender where the terminology is evolving, sometimes rapidly, especially on the preponderance of more recent reliable sources. In the case of your question, the Wikipedia policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT has the answer, or at least, points to it. Sometimes reliable sources define the same thing in different ways; the way Wikipedia deals with this, is not to try to pick one that we agree with, but simply to report all major and significant minority viewpoints, in proportion to their prevalence in scholarly and other reliable sources. That's why a comment like,

Being transgender is not a cross-dresser. This has been cited numerous times,

doesn't imply we should change anything, because you haven't considered WP:DUEWEIGHT. If you could come back here with data from numerous searches you have performed, showing that the vast majority of sources agree with your PoV or with HRC's definition, that would be different. But simply citing HRC and another dozen or two dozen references merely means that there is significant support for that PoV, and it should be included; it does not mean that other views, which may be minority, or may be the majority view, should be excluded, and that only your view should be presented. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

———––––––––––––––––

The source that's cited on the page [10] added cross-dressing as falling under "transgender" simply as a means of producing better statistics for the study they were performing. In other words, cross-dressers were included to produce statistically better results. I'm thinking it's more accurate to state that cross-dressing is not necessarily the same thing as being transgender. While some folks do cross-dress before they come out, saying it's the same thing is inaccurate and feeds into the trope of "man in a dress" that so many hate groups like to press, as a means of spreading misinformation regarding trans people. Physpkg (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, the article does not state that it's the same thing. But does it fall under the transgender umbrella, in that transgender may also refer to a person who is a cross-dresser? Yes. And so the article relays that. As you likely know, many transgender people disagree with some things that are labeled transgender. Some people who identify as transsexual don't agree with being called transgender. Some people (both LGBT and non-LGBT) don't agree with non-binary people being called transgender. But, per reliable sources, they all fall under the transgender umbrella. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the original poster's point is quite valid. Trans is an umbrella term, but it is an umbrella term for a range of gender identities, whereas cross-dressing is a paraphilia, that is, something related to sexual pleasure, not to gender identity.

Additionally, like another poster said, the source given for that rather misleading comment was a study where they included cross dressers in order to pad the numbers. It's hardly a reliable and weighty source that would justify inclusion of what could be termed the basis or justification for hate speech. Plus, like I say, it's just inaccurate... Imagine someone who knows nothing about trans people, coming on Wikipedia and being mislead because someone hunted down a dodgy source just to justify including a sentence in the article conflating cross-dressing with being transgender.49.199.121.60 (talk)

RfC: How to word the WP:LEAD

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.

---

User Lmatt has proposed many different ways in the past view days to write the lead section that merits formal RfC style discussion. As this is a sensitive topic, it is best to get consensus on how to write the lead sentence. The original wording reads Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.

• Option 0: Original Wording
• Option 1: Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that contradicts what would be presumed from the sex assigned at birth.
• Option 2: Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that differs from the gender presumed from a person's sex assignment at birth.
• Option 3: Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that contradicts the gender presumed from the sex assigned to a person at birth.
• Option 4: Transgender is a gender identity or gender expression of a person that is incongruent with the gender culturally associated with their assigned sex.
• Option 5: Transgender individuals have a gender identity and/or gender expression that is not culturally associated with their assigned gender or sex. (proposed by Gwenhope)
• Option 6:Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their sex assigned at birth.

Please list your preferred option(s) below or feel free to propose a new option. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 6 proposed by Kolya Butternut 00:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: MattMauler placed a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies on 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC). --MarioGom (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 5 is my preferred, as it is most comprehensive (which is why I proposed it), however I also find Option 0 tacitly acceptable. It would be better, in my opinion, to include the cultural association bits that Lmatt proposed, which is why this option is a fusion of Option 0 and Option 4. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am also okay with Option 6 as well, as it is just Option 0 with slight rewording. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• As Option 6 seems to be getting support, I would like to say that in the event a choice between 0 and 6 is made, I prefer 6 for reasons other editors have explained below. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Either option 0 or option 5 per MOS:AVOIDBOLD "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." To me, the wordings that make transgender into a noun in order to use the formulaic "[subject of article] is..." opening come off as distorted in exactly this way. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6 (added after I commented) also ok on the same grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would oppose any option that uses "presumed." I prefer Option 4, if possible with the "Transgender people..." wording rather than the "Transgender is..." wording. Option 5 is a little odd because of the "assigned gender or sex" thing; maybe "assigned gender based on birth sex" would convey this idea more clearly? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5 ; as it is most comprehensive and competently worded.Option 0 next best. None of the others is well written or particularly informative in comaprison JonRichfield (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm open to changes, but my default position for now is Option 0, unless there's a persuasive reason to change. So I want to see what the arguments in favor of change are, in the Discussion section. Also, David Eppstein makes a good point above regarding MOS, which I agree with. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  Confirming as Option 0, closely followed in second place by Option 6. Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option 6. This is the same as Option 0 except "assigned sex" is changed to "sex assigned at birth". Transgender people who have undergone sex reassignment have a sex that is aligned with their gender, so it is important to add "at birth". "Differs" seems appropriate because cismen for instance have a male sex assigned at birth and a male gender; their sex and gender do not differ. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Stick with Option 0. No need for the rest. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the "that is not culturally associated with their assigned gender or sex" option doesn't consider the third gender topic. Use of "incongruent with the gender culturally associated with their assigned sex" somehow makes more sense to me because it seems to be speaking of a particular culture or cultures rather than all cultures. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option 0. Concise, accurate, and sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 0. Can see no reason to change and none of the other options are an improvement. --John B123 (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6 - The addition of "at birth" removes any ambiguity of those who's gender has been reassigned. It is also consistent with the wording of the lead of Trans woman and Trans man. --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

John B123, "assigned sex" refers to "sex assigned at birth." That's what that article is about. It's not about a person transitioning and therefore being "reassigned." I see that Funcrunch has echoed this below. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

On my first reading of the options, my thoughts were that "at birth" was unnecessary. However, after reading Kolya Butternut's comments, a transgender person may well now be legally assigned the same sex as their gender, so the addition of "at birth" avoids any ambiguity, especially to a reader who knows little of the subject and may not take "assigned" to mean "assigned at birth". As the first sentence defines the term transgender it should accurate without having to go to linked articles for clarification. As far as I'm aware, there has not been any change in terminology or usage since the trans women lengthy discussion, so the need to include "at birth" hasn't changed. We have all become very familiar with the terminology during these discussion, and to us "assigned" means "assigned at birth". To think everybody will know that is a dangerous assumption. --John B123 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

John B123, thanks for explaining your rationale. I'm not strongly opposed to "sex assigned at birth" since some reliable sources do use that terminology, but I still don't see it as needed. "Legally assigned the same sex as their gender" is not what is meant by "sex assignment" or "assigned sex." But I do understand your point on clarity, especially for those unfamiliar with the terminology/literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option 5 per gwen's exquisite wording. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6 or Option 0 (in that order if you need a tiebreaker). I'd also be okay with option 5, but I think it's worded somewhat awkwardly, and that any of the ones that start "transgender is" are worded unacceptably awkwardly. Loki (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 0 or Option 6, in order. --Equivamp - talk 02:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 0. As a runner up, option 6. The others are too long, confusing, and unnecessary. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6 as first choice; option 0 as second choice; option 5 as third choice. David Eppstein is completely correct that making "transgender" into a noun is not the best solution (and if we did it, we might need to add quotes or italics). Option 6 is more informative/accurate than option 0, and I'm not a fan of option 5's "and/or". (Note that the word "or" already means "and/or"... sort of. The word "or" in English can refer to either logical disjunction or exclusive or, but it seems clear from context that each option's lead sentence is using it in the former sense.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Lean towards Option 0. Oppose 1-4. "Transgender is" is poor wording. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, lean towards Option 6, with 0 as a second choice, per some of the arguments above, and per GLAAD, Britannica, and The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies, and Merriam-Webster, which all have "at birth" in their definitions. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Echoing Bilorv in putting Option 6 as priority, then option 0. The current wording makes good use of normal English, but option 6 clarifies the assigned at birth language, which is relevant and necessary. On top of the fact that the earlier options use (particularly 1-4) "transgender" as a noun, I find that they're worded uncomfortably, unnaturally, and not in a way that's particularly encyclopedic.
• They're all broken except Option 0. Options 1-6 are "I'm a gender studies major in college" verbiage. They're all slight variations on something not really parsable by an everyday person (i.e., it's not encyclopedic). In particular, the "a[n] ... expression" construction will, to virtually everyone, suggest "a turn of phrase", but this article isn't about coinages, sayings, collocations, quotes, emotional or artistic statements, or anything else that "an expression" means in normal English. Further, 1-6 are pushing a subjective interpretation that not all readers and editors would agree with. (That's obvious, really since options 1-6 are making points at odds with each other; if they were neutral and factual, they couldn't be so contradictory and inspire so much uncertainty and debate.)

  Option 0 is concise, accurate, broadly understandable, and clean of politicized and jargonistic language contortion.
   — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • How do you feel Option 6 is "broken"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• I think that either Option 0 or Option 2 are the best choices. Entity137 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6 as first choice, and Option 0 as close second. I dislike the choices that use "presumed", as awkward, and I think the lengthier options are needlessly verbose. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6, is at least an improvement from the current wording, and it is unlikely a consensus will be reached for a change to for any other option. Lmatt (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option 0 is fine. The use of presumed/incongruent/culturally associated is unnecessary verbiage for a simple lead in a simple encyclopaedia. Option 6 is fine I suppose so that can be second choice, but I would rather the status quo. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6 although I do like the Option 5 as well. However, since Option 5 does not mention the issue of differing from assignment at birth, it isn't clear enough. Ideally, I'd like to see a merger of Options 5 & 6 but that isn't what is being asked of me, so I am going for Option 6 at this time.LiPollis (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6, but I would be okay with Option 5 if we removed the "and/or (WP:ANDOR). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6. It's technically the same as 0 because, at least according to Wikipedia, "sex assignment" means sex assignment at birth, but the explicit wording is less likely to mislead. I strongly oppose 1-5 because they say transgender is a noun - a gender identity in particular, whereas I believe it is an adjective that describes a person. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 0. All of the other options seem like they're micromanaging their words like they're afraid of being offensive for some reason. Keep it simple, no need to muck up concise definition with unnecessary verbal constraints. In addition, can someone explain to me why "sex assigned at birth" has to be the verbiage used? Why not just sex? I feel the use of the former implies a type of plasticity inherent in everyone and thus entirely separate from those who identify as transgender.
• Option 0 is the most concise and easy to understand, although perhaps a bit less exact in its wording. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6. The emphasis on "assigned at birth" is useful up front in an explanatory article. That said, Option 0 is fine with the wikilink right there. The rest are honestly quite hard to read. Vashti (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6. This avoids the awkward "is a human" phrasing, the complicated "incongruent" term, and the superfluous "culturally associated" expression (gender expression always occurs in a cultural context). It uses relatively clear language that is neutral and reflects the important distinction between "assigned sex" and "sex assigned at birth". 203.10.55.11 (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 6. It's the most simple and concise version, in my opinion, that is easily readable/usable in a sentence. With as sensitive a subject as this I feel less words are probably more likely to not cause issues. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 10:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 6 sounds the most positive way to refer to Transgender individuals, as I think words like "contradict" sound negative. EnviousDemon (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 6gets my vote as its the most objective wording for transgender identity and the phrasing contradicts gender assigned at birth is not congruent with more recent thinking about trans identity. There are some trans individuals who don't find their currently gender identity contradicts the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, non binary identity views gender identity as neither conflicting with or contradictory to sex assignment <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19361653.2019.1660295?scroll=top&needAccess=true>JDassistant 16:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)JDassistant

Threaded Discussion

• Comment - I think it's important to go with one of the options that includes culturally associated or some indication of gender identities and roles being variable by culture. I'm going to voice a minority view here, however, and that is in how the "assigned at birth" terminology has been brought in from the Intersex community, and wholesale applied to all trans definitions.

Gender (as in gender roles) is assigned, based on visually-perceived birth sex. In the Sex assignment article, in the first definition in the Terminology section, we have: "Sex assignment is the determination of an infant's sex at birth." The need to assign rather than determine the sex only happens when the sex is ambiguous. I know that "assigned at birth" has become the commonly-accepted wording for everyone, despite this. I doubt it will get much support, but I think it would be more accurate to go with something more like: "Transgender individuals have a gender identity and/or gender expression that is not culturally associated with their sex determined at birth." Or even "sex presumed at birth", as that could include intersex individuals whose conditions are not visible, but only discovered at puberty. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieV: We don't need to use the circumlocution involving culturally associated with gender; there is already a perfectly good term that encapsulates the meaning of the entire phrase, namely, gender role. Gender role is the set of cultural assumptions associated with gender, and concision is better. Plus, it can be wikilinked. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, look at that. Good link. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Good stepping-stone @Mathglot: but we also need to be careful with that. Just because one acts outside of one's gender roles (of which expression is included) doesn't make one transgender. Classic examples of these are butch lesbians and femme gay males. I think what we really need to focus on gender identity. Thinking on it, gender inherently regards culture. In this light, how does this wording sound? Transgender individuals have a gender identity different from the sex or gender they were assigned. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Of course, and I made no such claim. I'm only pointing out that if one wants to talk about concepts for which terms already exist, then we should use those terms. Just like we use "gender identity" and link it, rather than replacing those two words with a long explanation of it at the top of this article.

In addition, regardless what words are used, and how this Rfc shakes out, we should always keep WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in mind; that is to say, we can't just go and alter the lead sentence any which way we please as editors; it needs to reflect and faithfully summarize or represent content in the body that already has references to reliable sources. And if there are multiple reliable definitions that are different, then the body must cover that per WP:DUE, and the lead can then summarize that. What we should not be doing here, is coming up with some kind of wording that is unique and comes from somewhere else; this Rfc is not some kind of beauty contest or "favorite definition" survey. I'll comment separately on your wording, but I think it's important to make this comment first. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I hear what you're saying, but as Mathglot said, the lead needs to reflect what's in the sources. Funcrunch (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge that butch lesbians and so on are not trans simply by virtue of wearing male clothing etc., but at the same time, I think that overemphasizing identity may be ahistorical. It's a big umbrella and I think we can explain subtleties in the body. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch, what are your thoughts on Option 6? The additional wording "at birth" is supported by the body of the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I don't see Option 6 as a significant improvement over the current wording, as assigned sex is already defined as "sex assigned at birth"; it's explained in the first sentence of the linked article, for anyone not familiar with the term. Funcrunch (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Reverted Lmatt while this RfC is going on. Lmatt, do not change that lead sentence again while this RfC is going on. You were asked to stop in the edit history, above, and your talk page. So stop, and wait for the RfC to finish. Followup note here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Another pointless and time-wasting discussion precipitated by those who seek to change the wording to this week's PC terminology. As with previous similar discussions, such as at Trans woman, it will end with no clear consensus and the original wording retained. --John B123 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @John B123: that is a bit harsh in your wording. A good part of this is to show more unfamiliar users how the consensus-building process works for controversial or important articles. Your choice to weigh in is yours alone and if you do so, please don't complain about your decision to participate. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Gwenhope: - Please read Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4 to find out why my words are justified. This seems very much to be a re-run of that discussion. As for participation, it is sometimes necessary for more neutral editors to join in to prevent WP being skewed by those with more radical views. --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• @John B123:, what are your thoughts on Option 6, which adds "at birth"?  I don't know if folks read through all the options.  Also, using the phrase "identified at birth" instead of "assigned at birth" has not been proposed here.  I saw that you supported this phrasing in the linked RfC, do you recall if there was consensus against that piece? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Kolya Butternut: - I would much prefer "identified" to "assigned" as assigned can be an arbitrary or random choice (as in assigned an aeroplane seat), however the previous consensus was that we should stick with reliable sources, who use "assigned". I initially dismissed Option 6, thinking adding "at birth" was unnecessary. Having read your comments above, the addition removes ambiguity for those that have transitioned and therefore "reassigned". --John B123 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• @John B123: regarding the use of "identified", that degrades the sex and gender distinction by implying that those around said fetus/infant recognized some inherent gender quality of the aspiring gestatee/fledgling person. "Assignment" is the only accurate term we can use, as another being's gender cannot be declared by anyone except said being, but gender can be assigned thus. In linguistic terms, gender can only be objectively determined intransitively, but others can assign gender transitively subjectively. —Gwenhope (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 September 2019‎ (UTC) (accidentally left unsigned, fixed by user 23:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC))

• @Gwenhope: Semantics. In plain English, assigned infers a random decision, identified infers some sort of logical process. As previously stated, RS use "assigned at birth" so we should be using that, but although it is the accepted term, imho it's jargon rather than correct English. --John B123 (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• The comment to John above is precisely the misinterpretation of "assignment" that makes "identified" the preferable term. I agree with John that "assignment" is jargon; it means to objectively identify sex; it does not mean to subjectively declare gender. I think a solution would be to define "assign" in the lead sentence, which can be done after the RfC closes. The sex assignment article itself also does not explain the word "assign". I am also concerned with the use of "determination", because that has a specific biological meaning in some contexts. I haven't found a definition of "assign" used in biology, but one can see how it is used in this article from 1979:

  Simple and multiple discriminant functions using mid-shaft femoral circumference for the determination of sex were used to test a sexing method recently proposed by Black. The method was able to correctly assign sex for 82% of the sample, which consisted of 115 North American White femora of verified age and sex. Circumference proved as accurate as any other criteria that have been used in sexing the femur.[1]

  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We should definitely not be in the business of defining what "assign" means in this article at all. Kolya and John B123, arguing about "identify" vs. "assign" is not what this article is about, and is not what this Rfc is about, and is a derailment, please stop. Research into what assign means are way off the mark. Stop looking up what "assign" means, and start looking up what "sex assignment" or "gender assignment" means if you must, and there you'll find that these are standard terms used constantly in the research. There is absolutely no need to define these in *this* article, as they are already defined in the Sex assignment article, in the first sentence, and sourced. This is a wiki; anybody who doesn't know what Sex assignment means here, can easily find the definition, one click away. Anybody who doesn't know what assign means, can go to wiktionary and look it up. But that isn't something that is the business of this article, or this Rfc. This side discussion is close to the kind of thing prohibited by WP:NOTFORUM, and isn't helping. If you want to continue this discussion, please continue it at Talk:Sex assignment. Please let's get back to the point of the discussion, which is to help us decide among options for the Rfc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this topic is not directly what this RfC is about, because all choices include "assign", but I am discussing possible additional choices using the word "identify" over "assign".  I understand this is a long discussion and could be moved to a new section, or as you suggested we could identify the question here and link to a discussion at Talk:Sex assignment, but I strongly disagree with your suggestion that this is generally inappropriate.  We can continue this discussion at Talk:Sex_assignment#Assignment,_designation,_or_determination?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• @John B123: Sorry. My intention was to improve the lead section with a rigorous definition that wasn't a contradiction in terms. I have read Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4 as you suggested and it certainly seems possible that this discussion will be unhelpful and not produce a consensus. I may have precipitated this discussion but I did not help draft this RfC and I didn't expect all of my versions of the lead to be listed as equal options to comment on. Lmatt (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt: - no need for an apology. Whilst RfCs work on other subjects, it seems there are many different views on trans-related topics that the holders believe are "correct" and are entrenched in those views, so a compromise agreeable to most cannot be achieved. I have no doubt you acted with the best possible motives but, with the benefit of previous experience of these discussions, the chances of changing the lead are remote. --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This RfC may partly rely on terminology in the article Sex assignment, which appears to be unsourced (although the terms are clearly commonly used). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2019 (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.

The source cited [10] is discussing the methodology used in the paper to get more meaningful statistics, because of the inherent difficulty of performing a survey on the transgender population. In other words, the citation itself reinforces the idea cross dressing is not the same as being trans. You need to read the study to get this concept, not just cherry-pick the words. Physpkg (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The reference used [10] is not talking about defining “transgender,” but discusses the methodology used in the survey to produce adequate statistics. They included cross-dressers to help cast a wider net. Physpkg (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment after closure

• Option 6gets my vote as its the most objective wording for transgender identity and the phrasing contradicts gender assigned at birth is not congruent with more recent thinking about trans identity. There are some trans individuals who don't find their currently gender identity contradicts the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, non binary identity views gender identity as neither conflicting with or contradictory to sex assignment <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19361653.2019.1660295?scroll=top&needAccess=true>JDassistant 16:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)JDassistant

Drag

@Mathglot: Did you mean to remove both the HuffPost and HowStuffWorks source from the drag section? [2] I agree that the Bilerco source wasn't very good, but the HuffPost and HowStuffWorks sources weren't half bad as far as I could tell. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, No, I didn't; let me go take another look, and fix it. Thanks for noticing that! Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I've made an adjustment, restoring the two refs which are good and deserve keeping in the section somewhere. Exactly where to put them is an issue, as the sources are more like mini-bio galleries and not so much commentary on the general case, which is what the section is making assertions about. I ended up moving them up, partly to imply they don't verify the whole section, but just one bit of it, and the rest still needs sourcing. Can you have another look and see what you think? Feel free to alter/refactor as needed. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, Thanks for the fix. Yeah, I think it will need further referencing, some of these topics are hard to find good RS on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Male" and "female" in the context of non-binary

With regard to this edit, I'm not trying to grandstand, but to my knowledge, "male" and "female" is usually used to refer to sex, not to gender, so I'm a bit confused about why it's used for describing gender identity? Wouldn't something like "man" and "woman" be more appropriate, when describing genders? --Metalindustrien (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Gender and Sex are both ranges of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics (male and female) may be about biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

While "male" and "female" can certainly refer to gender(s) (just searching the phrase "female gender" on Scholar or Google Books will net plenty of results including many RS), I think we should probably use the same wording here and in the main article, where the wording has been discussed a number of times (search for "exclusively" in the archives] of Talk:Non-binary gender). (I'm not personally opposed to changing the other article from "masculine and feminine" to "male and female", I just think we should use the same wording in both, and certainly the wording there is the result of rather more discussion. Notice also the difference between "specifically" and ""exclusively", btw.) -sche (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Restructuring of terminology section

I'm happy to see the evolution of the #Evolution of transgender terminology section, which is nicely expanded and referenced. That said, enough time has elapsed, that I think we can step back and take another look at the organization of the first few sections of the article. Looking at the first three sections, "Evolution", "#Transsexual and its relationship to transgender", and "#Other categories", these are mostly, or entirely, about terminology. Note that this also encompasses the first paragraph of #LGBT community, which discusses identity, orientation, androphilia, gynephilia, et cetera. I'm thus proposing the following reorganization of the Terminology section:

1. Terminology – new, top-level (H2) heading

1.1 Evolution of transgender terminology – shortened; some it moved down to sections below, leaving a summary of the rest of the whole Terminology section?

1.2 Transsexual and its relationship to transgender (possibly renamed to transgender and its relationship to transsexual)

1.3 Other categories – possibly drop the header (only 1 sentence there) and promote H3 subsections; or leave and expand intro para

1.4 Non-binary, androgynous, bigender – dropping 'including', & 'and' from the title. Or keep as 1.3.1

1.5 Transvestite, cross-dresser – discussion of 'umbrella term' could be expanded here, or the variant meanings of transgender "broadly" or "narrowly" construed. Or keep, as 1.3.2.

1.6 Drag queens and kings – (in the order we're used to, rather than alpha?) Or keep as 1.3.3.

1.7 Orientation, identity, and expression – move 1st para of #LGBT community here, then expand

2. LGBT community – as before, minus 1st para, moved up to Terminology somewhere

3. Healthcare – as before; no change to this section or remainder of article.

Possibly a new subsection for the more technical terms, or at least, the unfamiliar ones to the unitiated (AMAB, cisgender, etc.). Possibly a subsection on style and cultural aspects (noun vs adj; transgender vs *-ed; do we deal with cultural aspects, e.g., pronoun choice, informal speech, deadnaming, slurs, etc. here? Or maybe that's "style and culture" and not "terminology"?

The part I'm least certain of, is what happens to the content of the five paragraphs currently in the "Evolution" section? I'm not proposing removing a word of it, as I think it's all good content; I'm just wondering if it should be left exactly as is, where it is, and connected, or maybe move some of the paragraphs down to the other sections, and rewrite "Evolution" as a "summary", introducing the whole section? In a way, all three sections (plus a bit of the 4th) are about "evolution of transgender terminology".

The named sections are about 24% of the total byte count, but for an article like this where terminology is paramount and fast-moving, I think that's probably okay. It doesn't escape my notice that Transgender terminology could, and probably should, be a stand-alone article; but in the meantime, this re-org would be an improvement, imho. I may mock something up and include it here later, or just boldly take stab at it, but I'd prefer to hear some of your thoughts, first.

P.S. In case it wasn't clear: This is only about organizational improvement: possible changes to section titles, new subsection titles, and reshuffling existing text; no text changes other than smoothing out segues of moved text, or briefly summarizing existing text if needed. Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This reorganization seems reasonable. Go for it. I think spinning a sizeable portion of these sections off to a separate article could also be a good idea (really, are two long paragraphs about crossdressers DUE here? I think they'd make more sense in a terminology article, with only a shorter summary here, and likewise for the drag queen content). (Maybe one day there'll even be another RM on merging transgender and transsexual...) -sche (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the response. I'll try to separate the re-org from any refactoring for crossdressing or drag, in order to keep the reshuffle part separately addressable for revert/redo, in case there's pushback or comments. Once that's done, if there's no objection, we can follow up with your suggestions, which are good ones. Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph or two on cross-dressers is fine if well-crafted since cross-dressers are under the transgender umbrella. From previous discussions, we know that some trans people do not like that cross-dressers are under the umbrella. But they should take that up with the LGBT academics who broadened the term in that way. Same goes for the trans people who don't like non-binary people being included under the umbrella and who may be called transmedicalists as a result.

Mathglot, I would drop "bigender" from the "Non-binary, androgynous, bigender" heading since it's covered by "non-binary."

I don't see that we need a Transgender terminology article for the few terms mentioned above. I'm generally against unnecessarily splitting articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I seem to be overextended more than usual; does someone else want to take this on? Otherwise, I'll circle back eventually. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Change from:

United States

Main article: Transgender rights in the United States

In the United States, a federal bill to protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, has stalled and failed several times over the past two decades. Individual states and cities have begun passing their own non-discrimination ordinances. In New York, for example, Governor David Paterson signed into law New York's first statute to include transgender protections in September 2010.

Change to:

United States

Main article: Transgender rights in the United States

In the United States, a federal bill to protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, has stalled and failed several times over the past two decades. Individual states and cities have begun passing their own non-discrimination ordinances. In New York, for example, Governor David Paterson signed into law New York's first statute to include transgender protections in September 2010. In 2019, 16 health care organizations filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in three Title VII cases, urging the Supreme Court of the United States to rule in favor of protecting transgender individuals from employment discrimination to ensure their physical and mental health. Fishmanconsult (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done Thanks, Fishmanconsult. = paul2520 💬 20:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

Howdy hello! I have replaced the lead image with a more diverse collage. From a photo quality standpoint, File:Woman looking out window (cropped).jpg is not particularly well taken. The exposure is blown out by the window, its shadowed, and poorly lit. It also doesn't particularly convey the diversity of trans folks. All in all, not a great lead image. I have replaced it with File:Transgender people collage.jpg, and moved the current lead image down. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I do prefer a lead image that better illustrates the diversity of trans people collage, both transmen and transwomen. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, regarding this? Collage imagery like this is typically removed per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. If one wants to state that this only applies to ethnicity, that isn't the case, as editors have interpreted "or similarly large human populations" to, for example, mean that they can or should remove collages from the Woman, Man, Boy and Girl articles. As a result, editors have debated using one image for the Woman and Man articles. See, for instance, Talk:Woman/Archive 11#Lead image and keep scrolling down, Talk:Woman/Archive 12, Talk:Woman/Archive 13, Talk:Woman/sandbox and Talk:Man/sandbox. And MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES has mainly applied to lead images, although it was recently moved out of the lead section of that guideline.

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well even if folks feel that violates NOETHNICGALLERIES, I still think a better lead image could be found. The previous one was of fairly poor quality. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the image in this version of the page [3] is better. --John B123 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I remember when we had that briefly and had thought it seemed good, but Mathglot reverted it on the grounds that the previous image was of an individual not so described. Mathglot appears to be right. On Commons, it's not included under any categories for depicting transgender people.

I also agree that NOETHNICGALLERIES precludes the collage image. As noted, it refers to "similarly large human populations", and transgender people constitute a group comparable in size to some ethnic groups. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

NOETHNI GALLERIES seems like a rather arbitrary rule, as after reading what was there, the justification appears to be something along the lines of "the individuals in a gallery might not be representative of the group as a whole"... But why not include galleries, but just get rid of any that are felt to not be representative?

2) And, wouldn't a single image of a person be even more likely to not be representative of the group as a whole?

3) And lastly, if it is to be extended beyond articles about ethnic groups or identities, then why is its name NOETHNICGALLERIES, and not something along the lines of NOPEOPLEGALLERIES?

Just my 3 opinions. 49.199.121.60 (talk)

I just noticed the change to the lead image and reverted it.[4] I don't mind that the image is dark; I feel like it de-emphasizes the individual in the photograph and better illustrates transgender women generally. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• What about File:20190514 195217-Edit.jpg. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we need a lead image? I notice many other well-maintained pages for minority groups do not have one and the same reasoning of NOETHNICGALLERIES implies is impossible to pick one person that would be representative without OR issues. Rab V (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The image illustrates the subject; it's not meant to represent all transgender people, just as lead images for any other topic about non-specific humans, animals, and things aren't meant to represent everyone and everything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

question about puberty blocking drugs?

What is transgender activists' view on pre-teen cisgender females who want puberty blocking drugs? PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

PAustin4thApril1980, No clue, ask Google. Not sure its particularly relevant to the article....this article isn't about cis folks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

PAustin4thApril1980 Please ask your question at the Reference desk. This page is strictly about improving the article, and is not the right place for that type of question. Mathglot (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

why isn't there any sort of criticism or contrast in this article? this is a controversial topic and it is intensely anglocentric to just present it in a "this is confirmed thing that exists and this is definitely how it is" way without trying to toe the line and offer a counterpoint at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.55.51 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It actually provides a view of the subject around the world, such as transgender communities in other cultures. I somewhat doubt that any serious reliable sources would say that trans people don't exist. Unless you can provide reliable sources that backup your claims, the article will stay as is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Transsesxual as a term, as well as crossdressing

I'm confused at the wording "transgender and transsexual" throughout the article. Transsexual isn't a commonly used term anymore compared to transgender (at least within trans groups), and promotes a mindset that trans people must sexually transition to be acceptable.

Another complaint is conflation of transgender with transvestite/crossdressing. These are not the same thing and have never been. Transgender people are a gender they weren't assigned at birth. Crossdressers are people who dress in clothes not traditionally worn by their gender. These are not the same, and not mutually exclusive either. SAMSMILE4 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

SAMSMILE4, Can you point out where these issues appear in the article? I do agree with you on both points. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I can find the second one right now: in "Other Categories" it lists crossdressing and drag alongside nonbinary. These shouldn't be relevant to an article about transgender people. SAMSMILE4 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This lead image is really bad

There is a shadow over the person and you can barely see their face. We need to find a better image of transgender people(s) to have there. I don't care what it is as long as it is not what it currently is. The current one does not quickly say that you are on the right page. 101.98.135.42 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been brought up a few times and you are not alone in thinking the lead image is of poor quality (see above discussion). AIRcorn (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly changed the lead image to File:20190514 195217-Edit.jpg, as previously suggested by AIRcorn. I think it does a better job than the poorly composed previous image, but am still open to suggestions for a better image, as this one has a little bit of movement blur. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, it would be probably better in general if instead of a singular image, we featured a collage to better represent the topic. All the images we've had tend to just be trans women. I think it would be prudent to include trans men and non-binary people as well. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Gwenhope, See the above conversation where I proposed the same, but discovered that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is a thing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the person depicted in the new picture identifies as bigender. Cheers, gnu57 20:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Genericusername57, Where did you find evidence of that? I don't see it on the description page...but if true I could easily just change the wording to "transgender person". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I think that the picture depicts the model Kim Rydick, whose flickr page states "Hi, I'm Kim Rydick, a happily bi-gender member of our transgender community."[5]. gnu57 20:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the longstanding image which I feel better depicts a transgender person in their daily lives as opposed to during a pride event. There may be some options of interest here: https://www.tedeytan.com/?s=transgender Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Viva Wildside isn't a pride event, it's just a party for trans women. --Equivamp - talk 00:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Lets just do an RFC. The ones I have seen mentioned are File:Woman looking out window (cropped).jpg, File:Transgender people collage.jpg, File:Transgender Pride (18872156511).jpg, File:20190514 195217-Edit.jpg and no image. Some of these might not be suitable to include in a RFC (i.e. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES and BLP concerns). Are there any other options anyone wants to propose? AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there are suitable options by photographer Ted Eytan, such as this one of Monika Nemeth. I found many free photos of transgender people on his website (link in my previous comment) who seem to be public figures but aren't famous enough for it to be distracting. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(File:Transgender people collage.jpg) is by far the best one (I strongly believe that an exception should be made to allow its use here). I also want to suggest the following image for consideration, "Transgender girl poses for a picture" (File:Kim Petras (40931636860).jpg) - Daveout(talk) 01:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We could hold an RfC to make local consensus to override NOETHNICGALLERIES. I also looked on Flickr, there were some 30k free use images for "transgender", but didn't have the time to search in depth. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like us to keep looking. Here's another option.[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This one looks very nice. (but i believe we need more information about them?, like... some sort of confirmation that they are trans?) - Daveout(talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

They are Bianca Rey[7][8] and Hayden Mora[9][10]. Here they appear together on NBC discussing the event where they were later photographed.[11] Many of the people in that particular album are in this list. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

My preference would be that we don't use an image of a person, as I don't really think anyone should be the "face" of being transgender. It's like trying to choose a person to represent male or female or non-binary gender, which we don't do. If we absolutely must have a lead image, I would suggest using the transgender flag or another transgender symbol. Kaldari (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

the transgender flag is a good idea - Daveout(talk) 05:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with @Kaldari: The trans flag or symbol would be better than trying to choose a single person or collage to represent this very broad and diverse category of people. Funcrunch (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what do folks feel is the difference between a lead image illustrating this subject and lead images illustrating other topics about non-specific humans, animals, and things? None are meant to represent everyone and everything, so it kind of triggers a feeling of censorship for me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's another image of Monika Nemeth but with the transgender flag: [12] This is similar to this version which Crossroads and John B123 expressed some support for -- at least over the current image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: In addition to what Kaldari said about not having lead images for male, female, or non-binary, there are a lot of misconceptions over what a trans person is "supposed" to look like. Literally any human on Earth could be trans, because it's a matter of identity, not appearance. Funcrunch (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I do understand that, but I am very concerned about trans visibility, among other concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Check out my user profile. I'm trans myself and working to improve the lives and visibility of trans people is literally my day job. Funcrunch (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Flag instead of individual for lead image is a good compromise. AIRcorn (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a compromise. Personally I'd rather have any image with real people. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is another image [13] of a trans woman [14] with the transgender flag. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is better than the current image, but they need to be brought to commons with the correct permissions (I think they are alright, but copyright is not my area). AIRcorn (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Options (consider cropping):

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7

Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I just want to apologize for all the women! I didn't find anyone else with flags. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

4 or 7 (cropped in order to focus a little more on those two) - Daveout(talk) 00:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that most folks support using the Pride flag besides me, so I went ahead and changed the lead image to the flag. I added image 7 below for more representation early in the body.[15] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kaldari (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a shadow over the person and you can barely see their face. As the person who uploaded and selected that image, I just wanted to note that this was an intentional choice on my part. I thought her face being in shadow helped 'universalize' the image and made it feel like it wasn't just representing one specific person. It was also an intentional choice to pick a 'boring' image, for lack of a better term. I thought something 'everyday' would be better than a picture from a pride parade or the like.
In any case, I am sympathetic to the argument that no individual person could stand in for such a broad group of people. So I am not opposed to the current lead image of the trans pride flag. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I see I'm late to the party; just wanted to point out that contrary to some of the above commentary, local consensus explicitly cannot override wider community consensus. Omitting the person's image per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERY was the right choice, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a guideline about photomontages. I'm not sure it applies to a picture of an individual person. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Did not read the whole conversation. ...so not sure if someone mentioned this....should we not use a symbol that represents the community over putting a random face?--Moxy 🍁 03:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)-

We have the flag as the lead image. I restored the image of the two people which is not a gallery or montage. (Sangdeboeuf, the previous lead image of the woman looking out the window was not removed per NOETHNICGALLERY which does not apply.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Not protected

We should edit protect this page, because of vandalism. If it’s being editing (positively) a lot then no IgnoredCelery (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

IgnoredCelery, As it turns out, we do not preemptively protect pages. We only protect them if they are being disrupted. As is, this article is already semi-protected. You may see our page protection policy here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and transgender people

Hello, the article does not explain properly the terminology to describe the sexual orientation applied to transgender people.

• Case 1: A trans man likes cis men.
• Case 2: A trans man likes cis women.
• Case 3: A trans man likes trans men.
• Case 4: A trans man likes trans women.
• Case 5: A trans woman likes cis men.
• Case 6: A trans woman likes cis women.
• Case 7: A trans woman likes trans men.
• Case 8: A trans woman likes trans women.

What's the terminology for each? --179.26.106.149 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Trans men and cis men are both men; trans women and cis women are both women. Men, whether cis or trans, who like men often identify as gay. Women, whether cis or trans, who like women often identify as lesbians. But there are other sexual orientations, including bisexual and pansexual, as well. Funcrunch (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

See also Androphilia and gynephilia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

And non-binary people who like anyone generally identify as "queer" or "pansexual" since existing sexual orientation labels don't include them. Kaldari (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Liking anyone is "pansexual", not "queer". You can be queer and not pansexual, and you can be cis and pansexual. Pansexual and queer are independent. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed statement completely unsupported by the given reference.

Removed "Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation" after reviewing the sources and finding they a) weren't even in the ball park for supporting such an obviously suspect and bold statement and b) that they didn even address transgender and sexual orientation at all. It would be very noteworthy if such obviously related phenomena were in fact independent so if you have anything like a reliable source supporting that please put it back with that source. This is obviously somebody pushing that view and scraping the barrel for support assuming nobody will notice that it in fact says nothing remotely like that transgender is independent of sexual orientation.

Here is what you need to put "Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation." in the lede as a flat fact like that: A reference to peer reviewed scientific studies or at least a single one of them that establishes that being transgender is independent of sexual orientation. One that even addressed the topic will be a start in that search.

Here is the kind of statement of bold, self evident fact of that nature you might make: "Gender dysphoria and sexual orientation are distinct phenomena." This only requires clarity of thought as they are in fact obviously distinct, non synonymous, as the rest of the lede makes clear. The thing redacted was the diametric opposite of this.

Finally, if in fact being transgender were independent of sexual orientation, this would imply that there is something on a par with sexual orientation that does in fact determine being transgender/gender identity, similar to the various determinants of sexual orientation which would be a very very interesting scientific inquiry, thing to be found out in detail. The absence of even studies looking for a factor or factors different from those determining sexual orientation determining gender identity would be negative support that the attempted assertion isn't even taken as worthy of investigation, being on the face of it false. Lycurgus (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, that website said nothing about it. I've replaced it with a CDC source. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There was another statement further down that was similar, and one if its sources (unfe.org) was completely useless, so replaced that one with a news source. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

So what you did was perseverate the original error with a reference from a reliable source that also doesn't state the purported fact. It does match the second statement that I said was the sort of anodyne self evident and admissible thing when it says that the two phenomena are distinct. It doesn't say that they are independent which is different from distinct. However I'm not going to waste any more time on this so it can stay like that as far as I'm concerned. Lycurgus (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, just read the comment on the revert which makes clear you completely ignored the substantive issue and just looked for a source to support the position which you then cover with busy work elsewhere in the body of the article. Which would have been OK if the source had in fact supported the contention or the contention had been adjusted to reflect what the new source actually says. Most people prolly already know this but folks this is why wiki itself is not a reliable source, common but deeply held obvious falsehoods will be supported by people with fervently held positions and it being the venue it is, there's nothing except the possibility of a beneficent truth teller to keep such from being pushed forward as fact as there would be in a peer reviewed thing. A scant possibility at that since, like me, almost all that can will just say it is what it is. Lycurgus (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Lycurgus, The new link, to the CDC, seems to cover the issue pretty well? It says Gender identity and sexual orientation are different facets of identity. Everyone has a gender identity and a sexual orientation, but a person’s gender does not determine a person’s sexual orientation. Transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or none of the above. We aren't saying there is no correlation whatsoever, there could be some correlation, but the point is that gender is not indicative of sexuality. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think its an important point to clarify too, as it is a popular misconception that all trans folks are gay. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Lycurgus is right: "independent" is the wrong word to use here. (See Independence (probability theory).) Cheers, gnu57 20:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It's the assertion that they are independent traits, something that is pushed by some with a particular agenda but that is contrary to common sense that is at issue. The first thing that you would think is that they are not independent but most likely highly related if not as clearly causally related as any two things could be. However I am not pushing that personal view nor suggesting that common sense should supplant scientifically found out truth. I'm saying that if you are going to say that they are independent rather than merely distinct then you need to give a source that says that they are. For them being distinct or regurgitation of some current PC PR line, you will be in the good place. Making a bold statement of asserted non-causality without support is the bad place ur in right now. Lycurgus (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, Capn Eek, ur giving wiki text as a support, parroting the line back is supposed to be worth emphasis? That is in fact the issue the pushing of that counterintuitive and likely counterfactual POV which is evident today and no doubt thruout the history of the article up to now. It's reporting this as a flat fact rather than a held position that is the prob. Lycurgus (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Would using the word distinct instead of independent be OK with everyone? It is the word used in the CDC source so it is supported. Rab V (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. Lycurgus (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Rab V, I like that. I see how independent could be misconstrued. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Re causality: the CDC source does say one does not determine the other but that doesn't mean there are not correlations. Maybe that's getting too into the reeds but if the line clarified that gender identity doesn't determine sexuality I think that would be supported too. Rab V (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Though the citation in the Lead was a bad reference, the statement is absolutely correct. Statements in a Lead do not need to be supported by sources as they simply should reflect the body of the article. Better sources can easily be found for the relevant section too. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

By 'statement', I assume you mean 'Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation'. I cannot fathom what you mean by 'absolutely correct' however, since I reserve that for apodictic truths such as those of mathematics and irrefragably determined matters of fact in the real world but the latter are always conditionally, relatively true so I have no idea what you are talking about since the statement is a purported fact of the real world. Also the statement will be on topic in causes of transsexuality. Lycurgus (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement was absolutely supported by the original source. The original source states: "Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior)." (And according to the Oxford Thesaurus of English, "distinct" is a synonym of "independent", so the paraphrasing is fine.) Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari: "Independent" is misleading: it implies that the sexual orientation distribution for transgender people is the same as for the general population (which doesn't appear to be the case). Cheers, gnu57 22:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's largely because the sexual orientation labels that we use are intended for cisgender people. If you're a non-binary person with a female partner, are you heterosexual or homosexual? Basically "queer" is your only option. And even for trans men and trans women, labels like "gay", "straight", "homosexual", and "heterosexual" have historically been used in conflicting and inconsistent ways regarding trans people, thus why trans men and trans women also often avoid the terms. So you can't draw any conclusions from those numbers about transgender status affecting sexual orientation (in the sense of androphilia and gynephilia which are not cis-gender specific). Regardless, I'm fine with either "independent" or "distinct". Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Kaldari, if you have a female partner and you are female then you are a homosexual, that is to say a person of a sex whose orientation is toward that sex, assuming by "partner" you meant "sexual partner" rather than other kinds such as biz. This is the flat fact and direct implication from the coherent use of language, regardless of your or the partner females gender style choices. Similarly, being 'independent' and 'distinct' are different relations that can obtain between 2 things.Lycurgus (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You would need a recent, reliable source arguing that "lesbian" homosexual refers to biological sex rather than gender. Most of the recent reliable sources state the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) modified Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Lycurgus, thanks for providing a real life example of exactly what I was talking about. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I didn use that term. Lycurgus (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, it now appears that you want me to contend with you over whether <x>sexual refers to biological sex or 'gender', which if they are distinct, the latter presumably would mean culture dependent expression of the former, which invitation, and any further of this sort, I decline. Lycurgus (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't want you to do anything that makes you uncomfortable, but just so as not to be strawmanned, neither I nor sources in the area of human sexuality (of which I am aware) use 'gender' to mean 'culture-dependent expression of sex'. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

ty. The presumption of a fact is not the same as the assertion of one, however googling 'gender' supports this one in its full form with the indistinct/distinct alternation. Lycurgus (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What? And why Google 'gender' when we have gender and gender identity?

Because I have been here a lot longer than you and know that what's here is in such cases is what people like you, in the aggregate, are pushing which is why wiki is famously unreliable in such cases and why I referred to what google places first from the OED in the nominative case of the term. Lycurgus (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia explains concepts using reliable sources; dictionaries provide lexical definitions. One seems more relevant to me in this context than the other. Also, google tells me that you have been dead for 2750 years, so that leads me to question either your credibility of google's. I have been here a lot longer than you, indeed. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

So here is the alternate universe/realities that different factions may have in all its glory. What's lost from earlier times is a presumption of an objective culture wide common frame of reference, with words having nuanced but generally understood series of meanings that were universal in application except where a specific meaning did refer to things that could vary in different cultural contexts. You are insisting on the PC source buttressed thing of a word over its OED lexical default account because the former works in your reality but the latter doesn't. Lycurgus (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm not sure this is the place for this discussion, but I do live within an objective culture-wide common frame of reference, and according to that frame of reference, sex and gender represent two distinct things each of which is "universal" with respect to that frame of reference (although each term is nuanced, even polyvalent, depending on context). And within this reality, the OED definition to which you refer, where gender expesses sex, is of historical but not contemporary relevance. I live in Canada, and the objective social and legal institutions here distinguish sex from gender when it comes to demography and national statistics, legal rights and discrimination, citizenship, social services and health care, to name only a few domains. In none of these instances is gender understood to express sex, but nevertheless each term does have a universal denotation that is then nuanced. So, for example, our human rights law protects against discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression, two different nuances within the broader concept of gender (and distinct from sexual orientation, which is also protected).

This is my reality, and the idea that it is somehow factional seems more than a bit bizarre to me. Our laws and institutions are not PC sources, they are objective social phenomena. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's stop here since we've arrived at a pretty fundamental disagreement that we can agree to disagree on because I don't consider any social phenomena to be anything other than subjective when judged from social justice perspectives such as you allude to. There are of course objective facts, an objective reality of any social phenomena but they are only so wrt an in principle external and um impartial observer. When making objective judgments of states of affairs, such an observer cannot regard a human being that was born one sex and has had plastic surgery and hormone therapy as anything other than a person of that sex that has taken such measures to present themselves as a member of the opposite sex. They may support that and affirm the subjective reality of that person's choice but that's distinct from the objective physiological fact that the person is not a member of the sex opposite to their birth one but rather a person of that sex who has had these procedures performed and has decided to assert their identity as something different than the one implied by their birth. Again, a good example of a thing in this case the objective vs the subjective. Lycurgus (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No, an impartial observer regarding a human being that was born one sex and has had plastic surgery and hormone therapy to appear otherwise would see a person who was assigned one sex at birth but who has taken steps to present themselves to others in line with their gender identity. This is what the reliable, impartial science on the subject tell us. Wikipedia's articles on these topics are not subjective or PC; they are based on the best available reliable sources on each subject. The ideas that certain aspects of physiology are more objective than others, or are more impartial than the rules state organizations make to determine legal gender, are just bizarre to me. According to the reliable sources, physiological sex does not imply a gender identity except for cis people, so your desire to write off the conclusions of researchers and the practices of governments as social justice perspectives suggest the opposite of impartiality: in fact the desire to buttress a rather specific, subjective POV that is rapidly becoming WP:FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

ty NewImpartial, for the masses and/or elites, I did want to note and recommend the kindle of Sartre's title on this Lycurgus (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Transgender meaning?

The dictionary states "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex." - does that mean someone who does not personally identify anything (and they were designated a sex at birth by a doctor) is transgender by default? This question is centred around "personal identity" which not everyone has. ZhuLien (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.129.186 (talk)

Hi, Wikipedia talk pages are only for discussions around how to improve their respective articles, see WP:FORUM for details. Your question likely doesn't belong here, but maybe you can try asking at Reference desk instead. Rab V (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Gender expression makes the lead sentence too broad?

(This might actually be an issue with my understanding, or the other article I reference below, as opposed to this one.)

This article leads with "Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth."

The article on gender variance leads with "Gender variance, or gender nonconformity, is behavior or gender expression by an individual that does not match masculine or feminine gender norms." It then notes "being a stay-at-home father" as an example of gender variation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_variance#Social_status_for_men_vs._women)

If "transgender" includes stay at home fathers or people merely who don't rigidly conform to gender norms/roles, it seems very very broad? So broad that most people (in western countries anyway) would be "transgender" by this definition?

Apologies if i've missed something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.141.151 (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a messy area, since Gender expression is a broad concept. However, this article is referring to "Gender expression that differs from the sex ... assigned at birth", so it is trying to reference gender expression as a form of gender identity. So, for example, a trans masculine person's identity might involve multiple aspects of (culturally) "masculine" gender expression, and such people are definitely within the scope of this article. On the other hand, a person who defies gender roles while having an unquestioned cisgender identity is not really in scope here. Newimpartial (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so why not remove "gender expression" and just leave gender identity? i.e.: "Transgender people have a gender identity that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth."

Seems less vague and more accurate?

This would exclude "a person who defies gender roles while having an unquestioned cisgender identity" which as you note "is not really in scope here"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.141.151 (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this would be an improvement. The ambiguity better reflects the reality of real-world ambiguity IMO. For example, there have been nonconforming gender expressions for a wider range of historical time and geographical space than there have been gender identities.Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

But as you note, purely nonconforming gender expressions from people with unquestioned cisgender identity would be out of scope for this article. We also have a word (and article) for this: gender non-conforming. It doesn't help to conflate the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.141.151 (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

We have three highly WP:Reliable sources including "gender expression", and we go by the sources. That is the WP:WEIGHT of what the ones we currently have say. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh! I should have read the sources! I wasn't aware of this broader usage, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.141.151 (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"Hair Fairies (people)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hair Fairies (people). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Hair Fairies (people) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Transgendered (Male-Bodied)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Transgendered (Male-Bodied). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Transgendered (Male-Bodied) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Twins

There must be some error or unexplained context in the passage (under 'scientific studies') claiming that 'One study published in the International Journal of Transgender Health found that 33% of identical twin pairs were both trans, compared to only 2.6% of non-identical twins who were raised in the same family at the same time'. Taken at face value, this would mean that at least a third of all identical twins were trans, which is obviously untrue. (Even the figure of 2.6% for non-identical twins is probably too high.) I don't know what the study really claimed to show. I guess that the study was confined to twin pairs in which at least one individual was trans. But someone who has access to the study should check the context and edit the passage as necessary. Incidentally, 'identical twins' is not a scientific term and it should be clarified as 'monozygotic'.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:284D:A998:D69B:989D (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right that the study is only talking about twins where at least one sibling is trans. The 33% figure also only represents twins it describes as male (presumably meaning one or both sibling is a transgender woman); the statistic is 20% for identical twins overall. I don't have time to update the article right now but I'll get to it eventually if someone else doesn't before me. Since the section of the article comes from a different article, it should be fixed there too if it hasn't already. --Equivamp - talk 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I edited the article like this; please check if anything else needs to be done. -sche (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Transition timeline" image for article

I think that perhaps a good image for the lead would be a "transition timeline" - pictures of someone before and after they transitioned. Trans people don't look inherently different from cis people, so a more apt comparison is before/after for the same person. Thoughts? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be problematic; seems like "deadimaging" (as in, "deadnaming"?) or prurient interest. I have to think about it some more wrt guidelines and policy, but my instinct tells me this is a bad idea. Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot I'd only consider adding one that was solicited from someone explicitly willing to provide such a picture - not making a collage of pictures that we have of someone before/after. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Elli, in my opinion, it has to go a bit farther than just someone who's willing. There's a subset of trans (in the broadest possible definition of the term) who are transvestic or sissy fetishists—which is absolutely fine, whatever floats their boat—but among that minority there's a sliver (maybe a big sliver) that are exhibitionistic and want to plaster their image on every article where they can get away with having it accepted. From a content-policy PoV, this is fine, and if someone else (you, me, 3rd party) found their image and placed it, then there'd be absolutely no problem. But if it's coming from the individual themself, it becomes a version of WP:PROMO, and then it's not okay. It's a bit of a fine line, but we need to be aware of that possibility. If you, on your own, have found an image of someone, and you have their permission, and it doesn't seem like they're pushing it on you, then imho it's okay. Does this make sense? I wonder what -sche thinks about this, or Crossroads. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot yeah, I understand your point. This would come from me seeking out someone - and ideally someone non-notable - and not the other way around. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

While I must say I don't like the concept, do you have a suggested set of images? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; With no {{ec}}, not sure how CaptainEek came in after, with an earlier timestamp. Maybe some Wikimedia software weirdness. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek not currently. I wanted to get other editors' thoughts before proceeding. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what editors more experienced than I working in the area of human sexuality have to say about this. I imagine there's a similar line to walk when choosing the photos to put at Human sexual activity, for example. There's potential privacy concerns with just choosing an existing image (regardless of copyright, I don't know many trans people who would want a transition timeline of them as the top Google result for "transgender"). At the same time, if someone is actively seeking to be pictured on this page, that feels like self-promotion, which is also a concern. If an editor finds someone who's willing, or finds an image and then contacts the subject for permission, I feel like that would strike the balance in a good way.

I definitely think that an image like this could be helpful for the article. It's a pretty intuitive, clear way to communicate the gist of what being trans even is. I could go either way on whether or not to put it as the lead image, because with higher prominence it exacerbates the privacy/promotion tightrope we have to walk.

There's also additional concerns that could arise (along the lines of the infamous "what image to use for Human" issue) about race, ethnicity, age, "gender vector" (transmasc, transfem, nb, etc), gender (non)conformity, transition choices, etc. These might be moot if we only have a few options for images, but as with any image depicting a group of people we should think carefully about what image(s) we choose.

Overall it's a tricky problem to sort through, but I think it's worth sorting through it as I feel like it could benefit the article. Sorry for the wall of text here. Srey Sros^talk 05:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't put such a set as the lead image; it would raise the issues Srey Sros notes, and common practice in other articles on groups/types of people seems to be to either use a picture that just shows a person (or group) going about life (including when they "don't look different from other people"), or to use no lead image. For example, Christian has no lead image and the first image is not a baptism or the like but a painting of Jesus fishing, and the first images of Jew are a star of David, a map, and then an Egyptian painting of a crowd; Lesbian does in fact have a couple of women, but Bisexual just has a flag, like our article does at present; Transsexual has no lead image per se and then an image of one person.
Such a set might be more appropriate later in the article, in the section that deals with transition. Of course, we shouldn't just take pre- and post-transition pics of someone random and combine/juxtapose them ourselves, as that would run into...a lot of issues (like whether it was an NPOV treatment of the person, which if they were living would be a BLP issue, and whether it was a kind of SYNTHy presentation). A person uploading before and after shots for this would avoid some of the issues, but we'd need to be sure it was authentic (we recently had a discussion about whether there was reliable sourcing for the person in an image in the Transsexual article being transsexual), not self-promotional, and representative. (Mathglot mentions that photos of crossdressers / transvestic fetishists could be self-promotional, I'd point out they'd also be unrepresentative, because although this article mentions that transgender can sometimes broadly include them, they aren't the focus of the article and are covered by two different articles.)
-sche (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I agree with all of these concerns. It seems like there's a rough agreement that such an image could be useful, though the sourcing circumstances would be necessarily scrutinized, so I'll consider trying to procure one from someone willing. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not at all sure about this extremely personal image record and share all the concerns expressed above, plus I am not sure if it would be that useful, but if editors do go ahead I do strongly suggest that at a minimum the should be two sets of "Transition timeline" images, both female to male and male to female. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That, of course, would be ideal. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Catholic document on gender

Why was my contribution deleted? Where is your Wikipedia's neutrality? --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Riccardo Riccioni: This was already explained in the edit summary by User:Equivamp in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the Catholic teaching is not explained but only opposed and criticized. Moreover the so called "secondary source" is against our Church, esplicitly inviting the reader to leave her and join the Episcopalians!!! Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Riccardo Riccioni: this article is written in summary style. You can find more details at transgender people and religion, though keep in mind that reliable secondary sources are necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the present secondary source is not reliable. It only express anti-Catholic bigotry, as usual in English Wikipedia. Let you know what our Church say: the reader has the right to know it. --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Two sentences from WP:PRIMARY relevant here: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge and Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The Boston Globe is generally considered reliable, as it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you have a reliable, secondary source to support your addition (or a primary one which does not require interpretation) it would be welcome, either here or at transgender people and religion, the page that Elli linked to (depending on how much detail you go into). Srey Sros^talk 06:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please explain this certain sentence

“ in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are non-binary or genderqueer, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender).”

I have some issues with this sentence. How it’s written, you can be non-binary and be exclusively feminine. You can also be a masculine trans woman.

I think the wording needs to be edited. CycoMa (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, There are masculine presenting trans women and feminine presenting trans men and feminine presenting non-binary folks, so I think the sentence conveys exactly what it means to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think CycoMa makes a good point, CaptainEek. There are exclusively feminine- or masculine-presenting non-binary people, so what the sentence says isn't quite right. Shouldn't it say ...it may include people who are not exclusively men or women (as opposed to masculine or feminine)? Of course, this all really comes down to what the sources say, which I haven't checked. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 03:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the use of "masculine or feminine" (vs "men or women") was taken from the non-binary gender article. As discussed in that article's talk page archives, there are benefits (clarities) and drawbacks (confusions, imprecisions) to either wording. I like Ezlev's proposed wording tweak, especially in this context, a sentence explaining the broad scope of transgender rather than (like in the non-binary article) explaining the scope of non-binary alone. -sche (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the sourcing works as is for the new wording, too, so I've made the change. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 05:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t the whole point in being transgender about identifying outside of birth sex. Masculine for example literally means “ having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men.”

There is such thing as trans women who are extremely masculine, there are even trans women who look like men.

There is also such thing as masculine cis women.

Gender identity isn’t about appearance or characteristics.

So I think the sentence should be changed to something along the lines of. “There are individuals who don’t exclusively identify as male or female.”

CycoMa (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact there is such thing as masculine non-binary people too. CycoMa (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I (hopefully) fixed the problem by simplifying the sentence. There is no need for us to try to define non-binary gender in the lead, as it has it's own article. Trying to define it here just causes pointless arguments and edit wars. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I support this change. It's not necessary to list those variations of non-binary in the sentence, and lots of men and women (cis or trans) are not "exclusively" masculine or feminine (whatever "exclusively" could even possibly mean) but are still absolutely men or women. Stating "not exclusively men or women" also raises issues. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, Kaldari. This is definitely a more elegant solution than mine was. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 23:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A great improvement, a lede needs to be simple, straightforward and enticing for the reader. I was going to say what Crossroads just wrote. Every person is an individual, including trans people. In the real world I guess we all know more women who are more 'butch' and men who are more feminine. The does not stop for the diversity of trans folk. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Trans

@Gender Roamer: Personally, I prefer having shortened to "trans" in the first sentence, that's the standard way we do our first sentences and it helps with dismabiguation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CaptainEek. What I took away from the guides on WP:OTHERNAMES and MOS:BOLD is that only alt names that point to the page should be bolded in the first line. That's just one reason I made the change I did. "Transgender, often shortened as trans, people" also read awkwardly to me. I'll defer to you guys on this. Gender Roamer (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

hi Gender Roamer if possible please could you split up your edits into smaller chunks, that first edit changes so many things, if someone disagrees with one, they might just undo all your whole edit just to remove one single thing you did in that edit. I must admit i am not sure about some of your changes but I will reread tomorrow. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bodney. The changes aren't mine, actually. If you look, you can see that I was restoring the beginning of the page to a prior version. All I did after that was move an image. Gender Roamer (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooops ;) apologies (note to self: try not to edit when tired) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gender Roamer; "Transgender, often shortened as trans,..." in the 3rd sentence is fine and reads better. Happy roaming. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

The umbrella term “trans” does not include cross dressing people. It is a term for transexuals, transgenders and non-binary people. The Enby Gremlin (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021 (2)

I request that added to transgender that no survey has ever been conducted to see if those who have had their sex legally changed are okay being labelled transgender. Also the legality and constitutionality of the word transgender has never been established on the grounds of whether it violates the full faith and credit clause rights of a transsexual that has obtained a change of sex. As a Massachusetts born person when questioned about it both Governor Charlie Bakers Office and the Framingham department of vital statistics stated that no one may refer to me as transgender based on my no longer legal sex without my consent. Also to do so could be considered a violation of all fifty states laws concerning the legal practice of psychology on an individual without their consent. Transgender activist may wish to note this to avoid legal actions against them. 67.136.4.196 (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2021 (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 reliable sources to support your proposed changes.ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021 (3)

Clinicians are not informing parents of future legal rights loss of children who obtain legal change of sex via the use of the word transgender and that their child will forever be seen ad part of the lgbt movement and subject to its whims! 67.136.4.196 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2021 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss your own opinions about the lgbt movement and its whims (or about anything else). Please either submit a clear edit request supported by reliable sources or stop submitting edit requests. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 19:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Transexuel ?

Excusez-moi mais ce mot n'est plus à utiliser. Il désigné autrefois une maladie mentale pour caractérisé les personnes ne sentant pas en accord avec leur genre attribué à la naissance et donc par conséquent leur sexe, le fait ou non de faire une opération pour changer de sexe ne change pas le nom, c'est transgenre et c'est tout. 5.252.63.158 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Certaines personnes s'identifient comme transsexuelles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at your talk page. Voir votre PdD. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

May 14 edit request

It is a common slur to say that trans people are transvestites or cross-dressers. The "reliable source" given to defame us in this way (and in the opening paragraph, no less), is flimsy at best and is, as I have said, repeating a slur against us. Surely Wikipedia is better than this?

Please just remove the sentence, as it is not true, is a defamatory slur, and is hurtful to us, the subject matter of this article.

Please remove this as a matter of urgency, as you are actively hurting people with this article. 49.184.213.214 (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No matter what harm you think this causes you need to provide a Reliable source to support the requested change. See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The old "trans women are transvestites" slur chestnut

It is a common slur to say that trans people are transvestites or cross-dressers, and needs to be removed asap. The so-called "reliable source" given to defame us in this way (and in the opening paragraph if this article, no less), is flimsy at best and is, as I have said, repeating a slur against us. Surely Wikipedia is better than this?

Please just remove the sentence, as: 1) it is not true, 2) it is a defamatory slur, and 3) it is hurtful to us, the subject matter of this article.

Please remove this as a matter of urgency, as you are actively hurting people with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an IP editor 07:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If I'm correct in assuming you're referring to the sentence The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, that's sourced to this paper published in 2013 in the journal LGBT Health. Specifically, this paragraph:

Eligibility criteria for the survey were: (1) being age 18 or older; (2) voluntarily agreeing to complete the survey; and (3) identifying as transgender. Transgender was defined broadly to cover those who transition from one gender to another as well as those who may not choose to socially, medically, or legally fully transition, including cross-dressers, people who consider themselves to be genderqueer, androgynous, and those whose gender nonconformity is a part of their identity. Inclusive language regarding gender nonconforming was used to ensure broad participation.

This is not defamatory or a slur, imo. In an article about as broad a concept as Transgender, it seems necessary to note alternate definitions of the term early in the article, and (relatively recent) usage in a medical journal is reliable as a source. Srey Sros^talk 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, it says "may be transgender," not that everyone who is a crossdresser IS trans. And obviously all crossdressers aren't, and I'd know since I created a page List of cross-dressing characters in animated series, back in March 2020. Also, I'm skeptical of people who claim to speak on behalf of the whole trans community. Historyday01 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

I think you should change "Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth." to "Transgender people identify as a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth." Wikipedia has always been neutral, and I think this edit would better reflect that and remain consistent with it's generally neutral view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abider445 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That would only change the grammar of the sentence by making it worse. "Identify as a gender identity" is quite poor grammar, and the intended meaning most people would take from it is the same as what is already said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  It seems to me that the phrase “sex that they were assigned at birth” is dishonest and misleading.  It implies that at birth, sex is arbitrarily assigned, based on some subjective choice on the part of the parents or on the part of a medical professional involved in the birth; when the reality is that sex is defined and determined by objective and observable physical traits that are not subject to any such arbitrary whims.  A baby born with obvious male genitalia is not “assigned” the male sex because his parents were wishing for a son rather than a daughter, but because he is very obviously a boy and not a girl.  If he later goes on to decide that he's “female”, and even to have surgical and hormonal procedures done to him to make him appear female, the immutable reality is that biologically, he is still male, and not, in any meaningful sense, female.  At most, there's an argument to be made that by destroying one's male reproductive equipment, one is rendered sexless, but that is still quite a big step short of making one genuinely female. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Blaylock Well from a biological perspective sex is determined by chromosomes in humans. However, like I said in that other discussion Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We go by mainstream views and mainstream language among scholars, and assigned sex is mainstream language.

Please understand that here on Wikipedia the information in certain articles is based on context. Also Wikipedia isn’t a place for truth.CycoMa (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

“Wikipedia isn’t a place for truth.”, you say?  that's a rather damning thing to admit, don't you think?  Do we really want the Wikipedia to reflect more on passing irrational fads, without regard for truth, than on trying to communicate actual truth?  It does rather explain my experience, of questioning the very premise of this article, only to be subjected to brutal and dishonest censorship for doing so. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Blaylock please No soapboxing. Like I said before mainstream scholars use language like assigned sex.

We don’t pick sides here.

Also like I told you language and truth depend on the context. Mainstream biologists would say sex in humans is determined by sex chromosomes, medical professionals would say it’s assigned to you.CycoMa (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A great essay on the idea of "truth": Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Gender expression?

Why does it say transgender people are individuals who have a different gender expression from their assigned sex? Isn't gender expression about behaviors.

Just because a woman decides to behave in a way that's traditionally viewed as manly doesn't mean she's a transman.CycoMa (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the latter point. Apparently those sources currently there use "gender expression", but we may need to examine some newer sources and replace them. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Replace Transgender people may identify as heterosexual (straight), homosexual (gay), bisexual, asexual, or otherwise, or may decline to label their sexual orientation. To Transgender people may identify as heterosexual (straight), homosexual (gay or lesbian), bisexual, asexual, or otherwise, or may decline to label their sexual orientation.

As gay is mostly used for males while transgender women often use lesbian like non transgender women do 71.241.216.97 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Good catch, I've made the change. Thank you. Srey Sros^talk 01:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)