Talk:Breast binding

Requested move 2 November 2022

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. !Voting is almost a 50:50 split here, and when I look at the arguments made by supporters and opposers, there are really valid policy points to be found on both sides - I don't think I can make a definitive determination that either side has presented better evidence or more policy-compliant reasoning. As an example, it was said below that "people knowledgeable about the topic !vote one way, and well-intentioned editors unfamiliar with the topic !vote another", and there is some evidence that specialist and medical sources prefer "chest binding", but equally there was an ngram presented which shows "breast binding" enjoying something of a lead in book sources. All in all there's no consensus here. If people want to follow up on the suggestion below of a split, to make an article more particularly about the term "chest binding" in the trans community then that's a subject for a fresh discussion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Breast binding → Chest binding – Per the previous discussion on this Talk page, the term "breast binding" has been mostly supplanted in the media (1, 2) and medical sources by "chest binding." As mentioned previously, Google Trends shows that the term is far more popular than the current one. Many of the more recent sources for this page use "chest binding." There are many studies and medical sources (1, 2), including the medical-standard WPATH Standards of Care, that also use it. Additionally, the current title uses gendered language for anatomy, which can be noninclusive for some people. Lastly, as societal acceptance and understanding of LGBTQ people changes, so too must our language. Iscargra (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• support per nom—blindlynx 16:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging BilledMammal as they commented on the RMTR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. "Chest binding" has become much more common in common parlance AND in reliable sources as well (plus, I agree that "chest" feels significantly more gender-neutral, which is appropriate for an article such as this one). Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, though I don't think Google Trends is useful data here. We're not interested in what people are searching for, but it's helpful to know what the sources are saying. I'm seeing roughly equivalent use of "breast binding" and "chest binding" in Google Scholar and Google Ngram (grain of salt: both include both reliable and unreliable sources). I have every reason to believe Iscargra and Paintspot on increasing predominance of "chest binding", and my anecdotal experience with the sources matches. If "chest binding" is more commonly used, or even as commonly used, we should move per our general preference for gender-neutral language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Firefangledfeathers: I'm seeing twice as much use for "breast binding" as "chest binding" at ngrams. I'm also not convinced that "breast" is not gender neutral; the binding is of the breast tissue, which can occur in both men (see, for example, Male breast cancer, not Male chest cancer) and women. BilledMammal (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

    It's important not to over-rely on Google ngrams. The most recently available English corpus is from roughly three years ago (2019). A lot of work can be published in that time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I didn't think to try case-insensitive and got about 60-40. Your search shows 64-36 for "breast binding". Still not the overwhelming COMMONNAME that would call this pretty quickly. Sideswipe9th has shown good reasons to add more grains of salt. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Echoing the comments above, especially the need to prefer gender-neutral language. pburka (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Google Ngrams demonstrate that the current title is the most common term for this subject in English-language sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal's comment about Google Books Ngrams and the fact the term "chest binding" is incorrect. "Breast" is not a gendered word; it is simply the accurate term for this part of anatomy - in both sexes no less. Our articles on sex reassignment surgery refer to the penis and vagina, as do medical reliable sources, rather than certain MOS:EUPHEMISMs that exist in the trans community. The chest, anatomically speaking, is the part of the body between the neck and abdomen containing the heart and lungs; the breasts are on the chest. MOS:GNL restricts gender-neutral language (although "breast" is already gender-neutral) to where this can be done with clarity and precision - this is a perfect example of when doing so would severely reduce clarity and precision, as explained. Use of "chest" by media sources like the New York Times or by Google Trends (as linked by OP) carries very little weight on a medical topic. One last thing - the article shows that there are all sorts of reasons for cisgender women to bind their breasts, so titling the term after one used only about trans people is not warranted, especially when the existing term is more accurate overall. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Is this a medical topic? Briefly, I suppose, but not on balance. Most people who bind their chests do not need any involvement from the medical system to do so. You can buy chest binders online or at Walmart. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

    Anatomical description is a medical topic, and gender transition is a part of medical care for transgender people. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I would caution against over reliance on Google ngrams data as being the decider for whether we should or should not move this article. The most recent corpus covers only works published up to three years ago (2019). However it does show that the term "chest binding" was on an increasing trend during that period. Iscarga is however correct when he points out that medical sources have changed language from "breast binding" to "chest binding". A PubMed search, with a publication date of 1 January 2010 to present, for the term "breast binding" in article title or abstract returns five results. The same search parameters for "chest binding" returns 14 results. A Google Scholar search, on articles published 2010 to present for "breast binding" returns 411 results, and the same parameters for "chest binding" returns 543 results. As such, because scholarly sources, and especially medical sources, have clearly moved terms, I would support this move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  One more data point to add. A general Google Search on "breast binding", for sources published after 1 January 2010 returns about 8010 results. The same parameters for "chest binding" returns about 10,300 results. While less useful than the PubMed and Google Scholar searches, because it will be nosier and contain less reliable sources, it nonetheless shows the same pattern as the other two, with chest binding being the more commonly used term. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  The PubMed sample is very small, and Google Scholar contains many non-medical sources. Given that plus that the margin of difference is not that large, and that the term "chest binder" is a misnomer and that the term breast is a gender-neutral term, I maintain my oppose. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm confused by this comment. On the one hand you rule out Google Scholar because it contains many non-medical sources, which is fair. But on the otherhand, you rule out the specialist medical search engine because it has too few sources. Is there any demonstration of how sourcing has moved on this topic that you would find sufficient? Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Another data point. A Wikipedia Library search, for peer reviewed publications published after 1 January 2010 for "breast binding" returns 143 results. The same search parameters for "chest binding" returns 210 results. Unfortunately attempting to refine this search further by discipline (eg, biology, health & medicine, public health) keeps returning an "application level exception" error. Widening the LIB search to include non-peer reviewed sources, which includes media and books, with the same date, gives 445 results for "breast binding", and 533 for "chest binding". Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'll make another attempt at a refined per-discipline search some time tomorrow, in the hopes that it's just an intermittent issue with the EBSCO service that the Wikipedia Library uses. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Also one more note. I'm using a date of 2010 to present to allow for twelve years worth of published sources. This is in part because many editors put great stock behind WP:RECENTISM. However if I repeat my previous searches for just the last five years (1 January 2017 to present) I get the following results:

  • PubMed: "breast binding" 3, "chest binding" 14
  • Google Scholar: "breast binding" 236, "chest binding" 457
  • Google Search: "breast binding about 7470, "chest binding" about 9000
  • Wikipedia Library peer and non-peer reviewed: "breast binding" 272, "chest binding" 445
  • Wikipedia Library peer reviewed: "breast binding" 80, "chest binding" 187

  So not only is the same pattern continued as with the 12 year range, the gap widens significantly on the Scholar and Library peer reviewed searches on the 5 year search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  In response to the comment below by BilledMammal, I've adjusted the search terms. Using a publication date of 1 January 2010 (last 12 years), and searching for the equivalent of "breast binding" AND ("transgender" OR "trans" OR "non-binary") in each search tool (PubMed, Google Scholar, Google Search, Wikipedia Library) to try and filter out sources that do not refer trans or non-binary, I get the following results:

  • PubMed: "breast binding" 4 results (diff:-1), "chest binding" 11 results (diff:-3)
  • Google Scholar: "breast binding" 285 (diff:-126), "chest binding" 490 (diff:-53)
  • Google Search: "breast binding" about 4750 (diff:-3260), "chest binding" about 7550 (diff:-2750)
  • Wikipedia Library peer and non-peer reviewed: "breast binding" 318 (diff:-127), "chest binding" 445 (diff:-88)
  • Wikipedia Library peer reviewed: "breast binding" 111 (diff:-32), "chest binding" 188 (diff:-22)

  Narrowing the publication date to 1 January 2017 (last 5 years) and with the same composite term search gives the following results:

  • PubMed: "breast binding" 3 (diff:0), chest binding 11 (diff:-3)
  • Google Scholar: "breast binding" 167 (diff:-69), "chest binding" 427 (diff:-30)
  • Google Search: "breast binding" about 4370 (diff:-3100), "chest binding" about 7300 (diff:-1700)
  • Wikipedia Library peer and non-peer reviewed: "breast binding" 219 (diff:-53), "chest binding" 385 (diff:-60)
  • Wikipedia Library peer reviewed: "breast binding" 66 (diff:-14), "chest binding" 166 (diff:-21)

  To show the difference in the search terms, I've included a diff count that shows how many sources were removed by the composite search term. While it is true that the previous chest binding search had some noise, it is also true that the previous breast binding search also had noise. When looking at the two side by side, it is interesting to note that the previous "breast binding" search was more noisy on Google Scholar (2010 and 2017), Google Search (2010 and 2017), and Wikipedia Library (2010 only). I'm sure a statistician could work up a quick T-test to check if it's statistically significant noise either way, but that seems overkill for a RM discussion. In any event, even with a stricter search on term, "chest binding" is still the more used choice across peer reviewed, media, and general sources.

  No search term is going to be perfect, there will always be results that are included or excluded when they shouldn't be. However, even if that is still the case with a narrower search, on the surface it looks like both terms benefit from a noisier search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Your searches forget that not only trans people engage in breast binding. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Like with a similar comment above by another editor, I'm confused @Billedmammal:.

  In your !vote below, you say that the earlier searches preformed were too non-specific, because it included sources on asthma and robotic surgery. Now you're saying that they're too specific, because they are limited to cover only trans and non-binary related chest binding. This seems contradictory, because the earlier simpler search on just the terms "breast binding" and "chest binding" would have included sources the sources you're seeking on non trans/non-binary people who engage in chest binding. However the exclusion of those sources in the more specific search did not alter the overall outcome of the search, as in both searches the term "chest binding" is more widely used within sources.

  I'm more than happy to run the searches again. What additional terminology or phraseology would you like to see included in the compound search term? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Chest binding is sometimes used to refer to binding the breast tissue, but it is also refers to binding the chest - these are two different topics, and only the first is covered by this article. I'm not certain there is any way to determine how often it is used to refer to breast binding other than through a manual review of the results. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  You can do pretty complicated compound searches in all of the search engines I've already used. For example "breast binding" AND ("transgender" OR "trans" OR "non-binary" OR "cosplay" OR "crossplay" OR "lactation suppression" OR "aesthetics" OR "gynecomastia" OR "moxiong" OR "sarashi") AND NOT ("surgery" OR "recovery" OR "asthma") would match sources that contain "breast binding" plus any of the second set of words while excluding the third set of words.

  Or is there no way to convince you that chest binding is actually the more commonly used term for this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  If you want to try and construct an appropriate search I will review the results. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy to run the search and fill in the syntax for it. I just need a list of terms that should be included or excluded. You're the one saying the search is too specific, what terms would you like to see included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  "Breast binding" doesn't need qualifier terms, because "breast" precisely identifies the correct piece of anatomy and hence sources using the term are always about this topic. This is why "chest binding" results are polluted with irrelevancies - the term is anatomically vague. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, as the diff numbers in the results I've provided above quite clearly demonstrate, both terms are as you've put it polluted with irrelevancies. The use of qualifying terms makes a straight comparison between the two terms fair, as otherwise you would be comparing all usages of "breast binding" regardless of context, against a narrow context use of the term "chest binding". Not using qualifying terms is stacking the deck.

  I asked you on November 3 if there was any demonstration of sourcing that could demonstrate to you that the terminology has shifted. I would like to repeat that question again. @Crossroads: is there any demonstration of sourcing that could demonstrate to you that the terminology has shifted? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Unless I'm missing something, your numbers for "breast binding" do not demonstrate that that also has irrelevancies, because as BilledMammal pointed out, not all breast binding has to do with transgender topics, whereas the results for it that you mention being smaller were found by narrowing it to such things. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Breast binding is a specific and accurate terminology. The purpose for breast binding is to flatten breast tissue to hide their appearance. Breasts are tissues that lie on top of the chest and pectoral muscles. It's not the chest that is being bound ... it's the tits on it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the above. In addition, reviewing the sources linked by Sideswipe9th, many of them use chest binding to refer to binding the chest, not the breasts; for example, An optimal asthma disease detection technique for voice signal using hybrid machine learning technique and Anesthetic Considerations with Robotic Surgery. Because of this use of "chest binding" for a different topic the proposed title doesn't precisely identify the topic, and the values Sideswipe9th provided overestimate the use of "chest binding" in reference to it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - WP:COMMONNAME allows us to choose a less common name: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. If "breast binding" is more common, is it so much more common that we can't choose an alternative? I think not. It looks like the two terms are both fairly common, as indicated by the various comparisons by others. This being so, we can look at discerning whether either of the choices "has problems". And it is so. My anecdotal experience with the trans community informs me that the current title has a somewhat harmful effect on the community. I recognize that has problems is a nebulous term, but I think it correlates well enough to "somewhat harmful". - UtherSRG (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think "chest binding" to a more problematic term because it is less accurate and less descriptive. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The binding of female breasts has been done for hundreds of years: for religious reasons, for cultural reasons, for fashion, to suppress lactation. This is not an article about the trans community nor the needs of the trans community. Wikipedia is written for the general public and the general reader ... not for special interests. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Crossroads and Pyxis Solitary.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. As shown above, N-grams do not support the proponents claim of commonness, and the current title is accurate and more WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• What about moving to Binder (clothing)? That's how most interwikis/sitelinks use, including the category on Commons MikutoH (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The subject is not as simple as the garment or device with which breast binding was/is done. Would foot binding also be moved to "Binder (clothing)" because the binding was done with cloth? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea from MikutoH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article were solely about binding in a transgender or queer context, I'd likely support the page move; usage in sources seems about equal, if not leaning slightly towards "chest binding", and per the abovementioned WP:COMMONNAME, When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. I see the argument that "chest binding" is slightly less precise than "breast binding", but this is not especially persuasive; outside a specific, technical medical context, both phrases are perfectly intelligible to mean the same thing. WebMD is apparently comfortable to use "chest binding" without disambiguation, for instance; moreover, WP:PRECISION mentions that some precision may be sacrificed in favor of other criteria. I also see it mentioned that "breast" is a gender- or sex-neutral term (and therefore unproblematic), but I'm not sure I agree. At least colloquially, "breast" is first taken to mean the female organ, then the male organ; even Wiktionary first defines "breast" as Either of the two organs on the front of a female human's chest; then, almost as an afterthought, also the analogous organs in males. Simply because a term may be used in a sex-neutral manner does not mean that its commonly understood meaning is sex-neutral.
  However, I'm not sure it's clear that this article is only about binding in a transgender or queer context. It seems to cast a broader net, describing chest or breast binding as practiced for various reasons in different cultures, which muddies the water a bit. It might be enough reason to choose "breast binding" above "chest binding". Would it be better to have one general-focus article and one article specifically on transgender binding? Shells-shells (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Making a separate article about transgender-specific binding and studies, while leaving the general article with a summary of it is a pretty good idea, since it's how most pages about more complex topics are done. I might make a draft for a page for trans-specific binding in the future.

  For now, though, I will probably request that this discussion be closed. Iscargra (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's probably best to leave the closure to someone who isn't involved. I saw you've already made a request at WP:CR, so a closure will happen at some point :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  "Would it be better to have one general-focus article and one article specifically on transgender binding?" This may be the best solution. The term "breast binding" relates to cultural, religious, and fashion practices affecting females; whereas "chest binding" has become the more palatable terminology for describing breast binding by trans men. If you look at the above-referenced PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google Search result links you see that PubMed chest binding links are transgender related results, Google Scholar chest binding links are also related to transgender, and Google Search links are predominantly about "transmasculine" and gender affirming. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: current term appears to be the most common term. It also is the more literal term. Springee (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Sideswipe9th. GreenComputer (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose move per the arguments above. I don't see it as the common term. O.N.R. ^(talk) 10:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Women, and WikiProject Fashion have been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Sideswipe9th's comprehensive demonstration that the proposed title is the more common term in sources regardless of what parameters you use. Ngrams can be useful but have their limitations and are not inherently more reliable than other terms, especially when usage seems to be evolving as demonstrated here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom and others, particularly Sideswipe9th. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom, proposed title is more common term. --Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 04:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Just use the common term, the topic area has enough of its own terms already. -Roxy the dog 14:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Everyone has a chest (adults and children) but not everyone has breasts. It's the breasts that are being bound. If there were no breasts, there would be no need for binding. Masterhatch (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Chest binding is purely a wp:euphemism of what is happening, which is specifically the binding of the breasts. 50.201.228.202 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Sideswipe9th. TBH, I personally mostly just hear "binding" without either specifier. Loki (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Question Currently, in the lead it says "is the flattening of breasts with constrictive materials...". If the page gets moved, will the lead still use the word "breasts" or will it get changed to "chest"? (Chest of course redirects to thorax) Masterhatch (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, for two reasons (linked from NPOV/N):
  • I had a look through Google Scholar mentions for "breast binding" and "chest binding". While both terms appear roughly the same amount in total, in general contexts, for example discussion about the historical uses in China or use in lactation suppression, it seems only breast binding is ever used. Chest binding appears to only be used in discussion about transgender care (though breast binding is also sometimes used in that context). If this was an article solely about the use of binding in transgender care, I could see the argument to move it to "chest binding", but this is an article about binding in general, and it appears "breast binding" is the only term ever used in those more general contexts.
  • Perhaps less importantly, chest binding is a euphemism. Chests are a larger area of your body, and what you are specifically binding is your breasts. It is a euphemism used to be kind and polite towards transgender men who may feel uncomfortable or even dysphoric using the anatomically specific term, so it is not without merit, but this is the same for other examples listed at MOS:EUPHEMISM: for example we are advised to use died instead of passed away, even though using blunt language like "John died" will in some contexts be considered impolite. Again though, if this article was solely about binding as used in transgender care, I think this concern may be overridden by a WP:COMMONNAME argument for "chest binding".

Endwise (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - please provide evidence that anyone binds chests without breasts. Skyerise (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this is a great example of a topic where people knowledgeable about the topic !vote one way, and well-intentioned editors unfamiliar with the topic !vote another way (and really, the arguments that "everyone has breasts" and "noonday binds a chest without breasts" in the Oppose camp really ought to cancel each other out). I am profoundly disappointed and tired of culture warring, low-information !votes on these topics from editors who seem to lack the awareness that they are even culture-warring. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Endwise. Perhaps a separate article should be created about chest-binding in the trans community? Thriley (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2022 (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.

Article needs to be split – as discussed in 2 November 2022 rfc

@Iscargra: per your comment on 8 November 2022: "Making a separate article about transgender-specific binding and studies, while leaving the general article with a summary of it is a pretty good idea, since it's how most pages about more complex topics are done. I might make a draft for a page for trans-specific binding in the future." — it's been two months since discussion was closed ... do you still intend on splitting the article into (1) "general" subject and (2) "transgender-specific"? Or should I do it for you? Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have had many things going on in my personal life and have not been able to create a draft for it yet or be very active on Wikipedia. You can make one yourself, if you'd like. Iscargra (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for responding. I'll do the article split. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 04:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As problematic as some editors like myself find the title of this article, I'm not sure there's consensus for a split. When re-reviewing the RM request from November, I can only see five editors in favour of a split or spin-off (Pyxis, Iscargra, Shells-Shells, MikutoH, and Whatamidoing), and between those five there's two differing opinions on how to handle this with regards to scope. Do we write binder (clothing) or transgender chest binding? If it's the latter, then where do we have content on current non-trans related chest binding topics that use the term chest binding over breast binding like cosplay and medicine? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A discussion about changing the title of this article to one that accommodated trans-related reasons (i.e. "chest binding") was held over two months ago and closed. The editor who created the discussion was the one who suggested splitting the article to create a second one that was more "transgender-specific". You posted 13 replies in the rfc — but in none of them did you object to a split. WP:CONSPLIT states: "When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered, and a disambiguation page created to point readers to the separate pages. Before proposing a split, consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic and to potential neutrality issues." Per the discussion closed on 18 November 2022, the closer wrote: the opinions were a "50:50 split ... and when I look at the arguments made by supporters and opposers, there are really valid policy points to be found on both sides - I don't think I can make a definitive determination that either side has presented better evidence or more policy-compliant reasoning."
Now that an editor has taken the initiative to split the article into one that is female, sociocultural and historically related (breast-binding) and one that accommodates trans and non-binary sensitivity (chest-binding), you decide to throw a wrench into the works. What's your purpose in this? To what end are you basing your objection to splitting the article? Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

If you would kindly reread my last reply, you'll see that I've already identified five editors who are in favour of some form of split, and accidentally skipped one. Of the six editors in favour of some form of split, Iscargra, Shells-Shells, Thriley, and you are in favour of a split to something like transgender chest binding, whereas MikutoH and Whatamidoing seem to favour binder (clothing). I say something like transgender chest binding because unlike the proposal from MikutoH which had a proposed title and implied scope, there was no proposed title or fully defined scope from yourselves. Also I should point out that it was not Iscargra who proposed the split, the first proposal was from MikutoH for binder (clothing) on 6 November, and then Shells-Shells for an article like transgender binding on 8 November. No other editors who contributed to the RfC made any sort of comment, positive or negative, on splitting content out.

With regards to the closer, the relevant sentence is If people want to follow up on the suggestion below of a split, to make an article more particularly about the term "chest binding" in the trans community then that's a subject for a fresh discussion. This seems to be that discussion.

Right now I'm trying to figure out what the scope of this proposed split is. Hence why I asked the two direct questions; Do we write binder (clothing) or transgender chest binding? and If it's the latter, then where do we have content on current non-trans related chest binding topics that use the term chest binding over breast binding like cosplay and medicine? Once I, and other editors who may be reading this, understand which split is being proposed, then proper feedback as to the scope and title can be solicited, and consensus for that split or the other one can be determined. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm having trouble parsing If it's the latter, then where do we have content on current non-trans related chest binding topics that use the term chest binding over breast binding like cosplay and medicine?. As far as I can tell, the proposal is that this article be about breast binding for non-gender-identity related reasons, while the transgender-affirming practice as done by some trans men and non-binary people would then be its own article. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"the proposal is that this article be about breast binding for non-gender-identity related reasons, while the transgender-affirming practice as done by some trans men and non-binary people would then be its own article." Correct. [A] The title of this article (Breast binding) remains with its material about historical, cultural, religious, medical, and in fashion binding of female breasts; [B] material about transgender/non-binary affirming "chest binding" becomes a transgender-related article (e.g. Transgender and non-binary chest binding). Cosplay, crossplay, and costuming have their own articles and can be referred to with a hatnote. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 18:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If the intent is to only split trans and non-binary chest binding out of this article, and not also the other topics which primarily use the term chest binding over breast binding, then does this proposal not risk skirting the edges of becoming a POV fork? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No. The historical binding of female breasts — be it due to cultural, religious, and/or patriarchal oppression of females, including the objectification of females — is a separate topic from the reason why trans and non-binary persons choose to bind their breasts. The two are not related. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 02:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then how do you plan to avoid this becoming a POV fork, as there are other topics than "cultural, religious, and/or patriarchal oppression of women" which are currently covered in this article, and which currently use the term chest binding over breast binding? Some of those topics were raised indirectly during November's move request, but include both non-trans medical use and cosplay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you're fixated on "cosplay". There is one single, short sentence in the article that mentions cosplay and it isn't supported with RS. As such, the mention of cosplay (along with crossplay and costuming) can be justifiably deleted. In the big scheme of things, the progress and improvement of an article should not be held hostage by a minor incidental subject.
The term "chest binding" is consistently used — by the article's specific text and its related sources — to inform readers about transgender bodies and body dysmorphia. The reason for female breasts being bound in Asian and African cultures, for example, is the complete opposite of why trans men want to bind their breasts: trans men bind to alleviate gender dysphoria — and since the latter is an element of the transgender mantle it is separate from the phenomena of the female body, what it has been subjected to, and what continues to be done to it.
The suspicion of a POV fork is your bugaboo ... not mine. I am here to make the subject comprehensible for the general reader, and in so doing, recognize and respect that a topic which relates to trans men deserves to be singularly about their specific interests and health ... and not tied to the female body. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 04:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "fixated on 'cosplay'". It's one of two examples that came up during the RM for which reliable sources currently use the term chest binding instead of breast binding. The other example that came up is non-trans related medicine, for which we also have content on in the article.

POV fork is not a "my bugaboo". Avoiding it is a content guideline we are all expected to follow, as any such forks are inherently incompatible with the core NPOV policy. Now I will naturally happily help draft an article that contains content on trans related chest binding, but only if it is compliant with our policies and guidelines to create one. However at the moment, because of how narrow a scope you are proposing, it does not seem to be compliant with either the content forking guideline or NPOV policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is a split needed? The article is too short for WP:SIZESPLIT to apply, and the topics are not distinct so WP:CONTENTSPLIT does not apply. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with this. Upon consideration of the guidelines at WP:SPLIT, it does seem to be a bit too small for actually splitting it into a separate article. Iscargra (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I support the split. Just as mastectomy is called top surgery when it applies to transmen, breast binding is called chest binding when it applies to transmen and nb people. Transgender concerns should have their own articles. There is no rule that says an article's text has to consist of an X amount of words to be acceptable. Sarashi is linked in this article and its text is only 58 words. Body Alchemy's text is 78 words. National Trans Visibility March consists of 134 words. The text of Gender fluidity is 200 words. In this article the text that deals with transmen and nb people consists of 138 words. This text can be used to create a chest binding by transmen article and with the addition of a complications section similar to this one's it will add approx another 139 words to the text, bringing the total article text for chest binding by trans and nb people to approx 277 words. There are also enough sources about chest binding and transmen to support the article. (I used an online word counter for counting text words, citations and templates were not included.)50.250.202.121 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Violence against women?

Opened this page to be a little shocked that this article is categorized under "violence against women" on the sidebar instead of the transgender sidebar - is this appropriate? I realize that the article cites one occurrence where this did result in violence against women, but by and large this seems to not be the case and the implication of the sidebar seems to tip into WP:FRINGE about transgender men being mutilated women - see the article on Abigail Shrier's book Irreversible Damage in which she frames all FTM transition as social contagion and a symptom of a misogynistic society.

I would just remove and edit the sidebar myself, but I realize that wholesale removal of something like this can provoke strong emotions, so I thought I would check in about why this choice has been made before I changed it. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

First, the inclusion of "Transgender and non-binary people" content does not make this a transgender article. Second, an article can have either a sidebar or a navbox about the same subject; this one includes the "Transgender topics" navbox. Third, in the history of breast binding, the binding of female breasts has been used as a form of punishment, and the disfigurement of the female body has also been a consequence of breast binding (in Africa, for example). Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 05:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't know if either the "transgender topics" or "violence against women" sidebar would be appropriate here - one makes it seem like this is predominately a site of violence against women (just given a look at the article it's obvious that binding is an activity that even some cisgender men partake in for gynecomastia) and the other makes it seem like it's something only transgender people do (which ignores cosplayers, actresses in breeches roles, lesbians who bind their breasts for aesthetic reasons, Halloween costumes, medical reasons, etc.) It would probably be better for both of those to be navboxes, and for the sidebar to be either nothing or something more inclusive. I think perhaps I may replace it with some pictures instead, as this article is lacking them :) Computer-ergonomics (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see your point Computer-ergonomics. There is a rather strong and unfortunate implication in the current version of this article where the lead image is of a trans man wearing a binder, and it immediately being followed by the violence against women sidebar. Looking over WP:SIDEBAR, while we can include one, there's nothing there to say that we must include one.

I think there's two parts to a solution here. The first is to remove the sidebar, and either replace it with more images, or not replace it at all. The other would be to add the equivalent violence against women navbox to the bottom of the page, alongside the existing women's health and transgender topics navboxes, should such a navbox exist. I'm not sure if one does though, as the women's health navbox already contains a section for violence against women. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a bunch more pictures, removed the sidebar, added it to the footer, and compressed them. I think you are right that the violence against women footer may be redundant given the thoroughness of the women's health footer but I think I will leave the discretion of its removal up to other editors. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)