| Revision as of 07:30, 24 November 2020 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 editsm Fix.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:10, 17 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,774 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Transsexual/Archive 12) (bot |
| (486 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies| class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=high}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 14: |
Line 15: |
|
|archive = Talk:Transsexual/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Transsexual/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa|style=long}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |units=days }} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=pa|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}} |
|
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transgender|date=2015-07-08|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transsexual/Archive_7#Merger_Proposal_with_Transgender}} |
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transgender|date=2015-07-08|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transsexual/Archive_7#Merger_Proposal_with_Transgender}} |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transgender|date=2018-01-19|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transgender/Archive_7#Merge_transsexual_into_transgender}} |
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transgender|date=2018-01-19|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transgender/Archive_7#Merge_transsexual_into_transgender}} |
|
|
{{old move|date=2 May 2022|from=Transsexual|destination=Transsexuality|result=not moved}} |
|
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}} |
|
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}} |
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{Section sizes}} |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024 == |
|
==Transsexual== |
|
|
|
|
|
The article doesn't really address or explain the fact that some transgender people find the term "transsexual" offensive. Needs a revamp I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Transsexual|answered=yes}} |
|
==Biology== |
|
|
|
A transsexual person is someone who experiences a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex, and desires to permanently transition to the sex or gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance (including gender affirming therapies, such as hormone replacement therapy and gender affirming surgery) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender. |
|
I was hoping to find out something about the biology. Is it always XY chromosomes? What kinds of sexual organs develop? Are they fully matured? Does it happen in other species? This article is full of anything and everything other than what I imagine most people like myself would like to know. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This statement is false. You cannot transition to a different sex. Your sex is determined by your chromosomes and cannot be changed with any type of therapy or surgery. ] (]) 16:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x]</span>→∞ (]) 16:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:This statement appears to be opinionated and is not suited for an edit request, and would especially go against ], even if you did state it in an X to Y format. ] (]) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Session: biological factors == |
|
|
|
|
|
A few months ago when I was reading this article there was a section called "biological factors" that doesn't seem to exist anymore, I would like to know if there was any reason for that. I feel like the article is less detailed and has more inaccuracies overall, although I only remember this example clearly ] (]) 05:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Minor suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the second statement of the third paragraph in the blurb ("Transsexual people were once classified as mentally ill and subject to extensive gatekeeping by the medical establishment, and remain so in much of the developing world") should probably be changed to "remain so in much of the world", as this is a irrelevant distinction that is seriously unnecessary, many "developing" nations such as Brazil, Colombia and Argentina offer significantly more protection and rights to their trans citizens compared to "developed" countries such as Poland, China and most of the USA. The current phrasing feels biased and needlessly political, in an already controversial topic. (Besides offering no sources to this specific point.) ] (]) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The WPATH.org<ref>https://www.wpath.org/</ref> site contains a link to the Standards of Care version 8 <ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644</ref>, where Chapter 2: Global Applicability, starting on page S15, it appears (17 using the page counter on the document itself) covers changes in health care views around the world, and does include some small focus on "developing" parts of the world. While I do show one source backing up the statement, on its face I agree with changing this part of the paragraph some. I don't think the phrase is biased or political, but it does appear to be undue. ] (]) 15:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{sources-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Transsexual|answered=y}} |
|
|
The citations at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph should be linked to their matching references ] (]) 20:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is there reason to think that those page numbers aren't all from Valentine? I haven't found a full copy, but I found page 8, and it has "While they and others are gathered here under the category 'transgender,' they have different attitudes toward it. Cherry likes the term, though she uses it interchangeably with 'transexual,' while Cindy dismisses it as 'tranny crap.{{' "}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dehumanizing term is outdated according to reputable sources == |
|
== Requested move 23 November 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My hunch was right. "Trans***ual" is from the 20th-century. It dehumanizes and objectifies people into sex things. I researched this. It isn't used by civil rights groups like Human Rights Campaign. The ] tells people that it is . GLAAD says it is old and . You couldn't tout yourself to get elected dogcatcher. ] (]) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{requested move/dated|Transsexuality}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Trans editor here. You are misstating your own cited sources, which say that while the term ''transsexual'' is largely outdated, some trans people do still identify with it. Regardless, please recognize that any significant changes to an article on a highly controversial topic such as this one need to have consensus. ] (]) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
] → {{no redirect|Transsexuality}} – The first use of ''transsexual'' in the article is as an adjective, whereas titles should generally be ]. A ] suggested that ''transsexual'' is the ], but its use as a countable noun ("True transsexuals feel..." ) is on the same level as ''blacks'' for African Americans. That is, it's either ] or . '''''Transsexuality''''' is used by published, reliable sources such as , , , , and . ] (]) 21:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. There is no more of a valid reason to move this article to "Transsexuality" than there is to move the ] article to "Transgenderism." The , which focuses on the term ''transsexual'' (not ''transsexuality''), is reason enough to leave the article where it's at. And although we do sometimes use ''transsexuality'' on Misplaced Pages to address the topic of transgender identity in general, it is a term that makes people think that the topic is all about, or mainly about, sexuality...when it's about more than that. And there are academic sources that address confusion over the term ''transsexuality'' in that regard. ] (]) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
**The same section says, ]. That's the main reason to move the article, because article titles should be ]. I don't see any significant risk of confusion here; if ''transsexuality'' is good enough for the likes of , it should be good enough for us. —] (]) 02:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Dictionaries, such as ] source, list ''transsexual'' as a noun and as an adjective. They also regarding the term ''transgender.'' In fact, they tell us that it's usually offensive to use the term ''transgender'' as a noun. They state that "Use of ''transgender'' as a noun is declining and is usually taken as offensive. And people object to the adjectival variant transgendered because the –ed suffix could imply that something happened to make the person transgender." I wonder why you aren't suggesting that we move the Transgender article. And no need to bring up ]. As it notes, such arguments can be valid or invalid. And, in this case, you have brought up what is done for other articles, as if we never have any exceptions regarding article titles. I will state that we commonly/usually do not copy what other encyclopedias do. That is what makes Misplaced Pages different. As for what is confusing or not in this case? I'm only interested in what academic sources state on the matter. We already have the Transgender article, which is about the transgender topic in general. Considering that the term ''transsexuality'' is used to refer to the transgender topic in general, renaming this article that confuses what this article is about. We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community. ] (]) 02:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in this case. I haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison, but in fact I would support a move of {{xt|]}} to a less outdated or demeaning term. Right now we're discussing ''this'' article. ] is policy, which means it represents established consensus. If we want to ] in this case, then we would need a convincing argument for why doing so is an improvement, not just vague hand-waving about "exceptions". Specifically, I'm not aware of any blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. Avoiding doing so just to be "different" frankly seems bizarre. —] (]) 03:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::You stated that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case. And you stated that presumably because you argue that you "haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison." You brought up WP:NOUN in terms of what we do with other articles. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You need not specifically mention other articles for that to be the case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for what I've argued. No one stated anything about a blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. No one stated anything about avoiding doing so just to be different. The point on other encyclopedias is that we usually do not do things just because they have done it. And my point about renaming this article? I do not see how I can be any clearer. "We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community." No to a ]. When it comes to the Transgender and Transsexual articles, a case can be made that if any of the two should be titled "Transsexuality"...then it's the Transgender article. But I wouldn't support changing the title of that article either. If the Transgender article was about the term ''transgender'', then your case for renaming this one would be strong. This one would then be the one about the transgender topic in general. But it's not. ] (]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::I have no idea where this OTHERSTUFF argument is coming from. I cited ], which is part of ], as a justification for renaming ''this article specifically''. If we're saying that policy arguments are just OTHERSTUFF, then I guess we can get rid of ] altogether. And the notion that "we usually do not do things just because have done it" nullifies both ] and much of the logic behind ]. We use other encyclopedias (especially academic ones) as a guide all the time. —] (]) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You don't get it. Understood. For example, using other encyclopedias as sources in our articles is obviously not the same thing as copying what they do. And tertiary sources obviously aren't the strongest sources. ] (]) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Per ]: ''"Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight"''. If you want to argue that ''Britannica'' is not a reliable teriary source, fine, but there's nothing in the policy that justifies ''not'' using tertiary sources as a model. —] (]) 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Doesn't take away from what I argued. Neither does you, as usual, putting words in my mouth. ] (]) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Not what I meant at all. To be clear, one ''could'' potentially make a case that ''Britannica'' itself is not the strongest source. ''If'' that's what you're arguing, fine. If not, then I don't see anything in the policy that specifically ''discourages'' using published encyclopedias as a model; quite the contrary. —] (]) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::What is "quite the contrary"? ] (]) 06:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::]. We can use tertiary sources as a basis for constructing articles, and by extension, naming articles. ], as a component of NPOV, applies to ] as well. —] (]) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::You don't need to quote WP:TERTIARY to me. You don't need to quote any policy or guideline to me. But you already know that. I've stated it to you enough times. You argued "quite the contrary", as if Misplaced Pages is in the habit of copying what other encyclopedias do. It's not. I asked "What is 'quite the contrary'?" for examples. I know <del>what I'll be getting any</del> I won't be getting any. Again, using encyclopedias in our Misplaced Pages articles is not the same thing as copying what they do. Our ], as discussed on that guideline's talk page times before, even makes a point of not doing what other outlets do for a number of things. But, hey, you do you. ] (]) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: "Being transsexual specifically" is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not "the transgender topic in general": ] (my bolding). —] (]) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::If you are going to argue that the term ''transgender'' -- a well-accepted umbrella term -- is demeaning and offensive, then you should provide reliable sources, especially reliable academic sources, backing you up on that. Since you want to mention ''Britannica'' as support of what we should do here at Misplaced Pages, I note now that has a Transgender article. Well, it's titled "Transgender (gender identity)" when viewed from the outside of the article. But it's still there -- "transgender" right in the title. The difference is that Misplaced Pages would not disambiguate like that since ] exists and all. You argued, "'Being transsexual specifically' is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not 'the transgender topic in general'." I don't feel like sitting here and listing sources that clearly show that ''transsexuality'' doesn't only refer to those who have undergone hormone <del>replacement</del> therapy and/or surgery. By contrast, ''transsexual'' does. The reason that the Causes of transsexuality article has "transsexuality" in the title is because ] ] (]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::I am not arguing that ''transgender'' is offensive; your own ''Dictionary.com'' source does that: . Regarding the need to have undergone hormone therapy/surgery, your own source for the definition of ''transsexual'' belies this: (my bolding). Basic English grammar (i.e. the use of the suffix '' ]'') means that ''transsexuality'' is the state of being ''transsexual''. I won't hold my breath waiting for sources saying ''transsexuality'' means something entirely different, because I'm pretty sure they don't exist. —] (]) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You are the one who stated that you are considering moving the Transgender article "to a less outdated or demeaning term." And what term would that be? Hmm? You are the one who pointed to ''Britannica'' as support of what we should do here at Misplaced Pages. I pointed it back at you, showing that it also uses the Transgender article title. Regarding not holding your breath when it comes to me providing sources? Many editors know that I don't state anything about the literature on whatever unless it's true. As seen at ], I'm known to provide a collapsed box of sources to support my arguments. But you aren't going to goad me into doing that at this talk page. My previous interactions with you on transgender topics have already made it clear to me that there are a lot of things you aren't aware exist in this field. I mean, not looking beyond dictionary sources when it comes to what ''transsexuality'' can refer to? Citing passages from this Misplaced Pages article? I usually don't have to request sources on this topic. I know what I'm talking about. ] (]) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I don't know what you're driving at here; I didn't mention the {{xt|]}} article until you yourself brought it up. I replied that I would apply the same reasoning to that page as to this one. But I really don't care at this moment what we do with that article. I cited four academic sources plus ''Britannica'' on what ''transsexuality'' refers to. The dictionary sources are the same ones you and Crossroads used to justify your own arguments. I countered this by showing that they say the opposite of what was being claimed. If the section on {{xt|]}} that I cited is in error, feel free to correct it. —] (]) 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Uh-huh. ] (]) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I don't know why you think that the section you've referred to using the words "generally", "may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex", and "transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition" translates to "''transsexuality'' has only ever referred to physical alterations." But whatever. ] (]) 06:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Not surprising, since I never made that claim. Being ''transsexual'' does not always mean physically altering one's body. —] (]) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Never explicitly made the claim, but have been stating it nonetheless with comments noting that you doubt it means anything other than the physical aspects of one's sex (hormones and surgery) and what you cited regarding what ''transsexuality'' refers to. ] (]) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Less outdated or demeaning term? And what would that be? If the point is that is what is being done here, I see no evidence that "transsexuality" is better than "transsexual". <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::The {{xt|]}} article can wait; I would prefer to stay on the topic of ''this'' article. The fact that ''transsexuality'' is unambiguously a noun (as in {{xt|]}}) should be all the "evidence" we need that it's a better title for this article. —] (]) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Flyer22 Frozen covered it well. The proposer's comparison to the term "blacks" has nothing to do with this situation, and the claim of "outdated" has to do with how "transgender" is the common umbrella term nowadays; in no way is "transsexuality" to be preferred on that basis. ] weighs ''against'' "transsexuality", as readers will tend far more to think it has to do with ]. "Transsexual" is a noun; see and the . There are plenty of sources that use "transsexual" too. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*: The top results of that all use ''transsexual'' as an adjective, not a noun. According to both your dictionary sources, ''transsexual'' as a noun refers to a person, not a generalized medical phenomenon; on that basis ] should read, ''"'''Transsexuals''' are people who experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex"'', which seems both outdated and unduly personalized. The article is about the broader phenomenon of transsexuality or state of being transsexual, not transsexuals as a group of people. The '']'' cautions against such usage, even comparing it to the term ''blacks'': ''"Use as an adjective - do not say 'transsexuals', in the same way we would not talk about 'gays' or 'blacks{{' "}}'' . —] (]) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per above arguments.--] (]) 05:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per above arguments. --] (]) 07:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
A transsexual person is someone who experiences a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex, and desires to permanently transition to the sex or gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance (including gender affirming therapies, such as hormone replacement therapy and gender affirming surgery) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender.
This statement is false. You cannot transition to a different sex. Your sex is determined by your chromosomes and cannot be changed with any type of therapy or surgery. 78.149.42.11 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
A few months ago when I was reading this article there was a section called "biological factors" that doesn't seem to exist anymore, I would like to know if there was any reason for that. I feel like the article is less detailed and has more inaccuracies overall, although I only remember this example clearly 2804:1CD8:C241:2E0:413B:1E26:AC69:196A (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the second statement of the third paragraph in the blurb ("Transsexual people were once classified as mentally ill and subject to extensive gatekeeping by the medical establishment, and remain so in much of the developing world") should probably be changed to "remain so in much of the world", as this is a irrelevant distinction that is seriously unnecessary, many "developing" nations such as Brazil, Colombia and Argentina offer significantly more protection and rights to their trans citizens compared to "developed" countries such as Poland, China and most of the USA. The current phrasing feels biased and needlessly political, in an already controversial topic. (Besides offering no sources to this specific point.) 8pregos (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
My hunch was right. "Trans***ual" is from the 20th-century. It dehumanizes and objectifies people into sex things. I researched this. It isn't used by civil rights groups like Human Rights Campaign. The APA style tells people that it is outdated. GLAAD says it is old and don't use it. You couldn't tout yourself to get elected dogcatcher. Arbeiten8 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
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. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)