Talk:Mustarjil

My edits

Greetings and felicitations. I stumbled across this draft article; I hope you don't mind the edits. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for making them @DocWatson42, the more editors the merrier! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. ^_^ Regarding the references, some of them are a bit incomplete, and I prefer clarity in the naming of the appendices—may I suggest that the "Notes" section be renamed "Explanatory notes"? Also, if there is an official transl(iter)ation of the third reference's title, it should be added. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - I think @Mohammad hajeer can help with the latter - we're still working on compiling more Arabic language sources Lajmmoore (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe I’ve provided enough references, and this time I used books. What do you think—are they sufficient? Mohammad hajeer (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mohammad hajeer - I just had a question about the final sentence "For this reason, Arab society in general, and Muslim society in particular, views the term "mustarjila" as an insult directed at women." - I used Google translate to look at the article, but I can't see where it directly says that the term is an insult here and when I searched for the Arabic term, I couldn't see it. Please could you point me to the part where the article is explicit about it being an insult? I've added in some infomation on it being Western influence, which I think is very pertinent Lajmmoore Demo (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not reproducing the reference verbatim to obtain the exact sentence. Nevertheless, the title of the article on its own is sufficient to substantiate the claim, as it illustrates the negative connotation associated with the term “mustarjila” (masculine woman). The title, “The Masculine Woman: A Phenomenon Stemming from Society and Its Contradictions,” published in an official newspaper, frames mustarjila as a negative phenomenon and examines its underlying causes. A closer reading of the article further reveals that mustarjila is depicted as a transgression, one that society is expected to address and resolve. Mohammad hajeer (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mohammad hajeer - yes I read the article (albeit through google translate, so of course imperfect). The reason I was asking is that I think on English Wikipedia that conclusion, which is as you say, implied, would come under the policy WP:SYNTH which is something to be avoided. I've ordered a book called The Queer Arab Glossary, which also mentions the term. I do appreciate the time and effort you're putting in! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is all I could do; you may make any adjustments you see fit. Mohammad hajeer (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your work @Mohammad hajeer Lajmmoore (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 11:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Mustarjil
• Masoud El Amaratly

)

Recording of El Amaratly's folk singing

• ... that British anthropologist Wilfred Thesiger recorded information on the mustarjil, a gender identity associated with the Marsh Arabs of Iraq? Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7O-SDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&dq=mustarjil#v=onepage&q=mustarjil&f=false which refers to his book The Marsh People
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Malpas (band)

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 151 past nominations.

Lajmmoore (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC).

• @Lajmmoore: Long enough, new enough. QPQ done and Earwig is clean. Not all of the hook is sourced - "British anthropologist" is in the lead unsourced, and the only reference to "Marsh Arabs" I can find is to the book The Marsh Arabs - but as this is earmarked for Trans Day of Rememberance (see WT:DYK#Proposed thematic set) and so is Masoud El Amaratly, you may wish to consider a double hook.--Launchballer 06:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks Launchballer - so the various writers on the topic use Marsh Arab/Ahwari interchangeably. I used Ahwari in the article as its the term used by the most recent scholarship, but Ahwari redirects to the article on Marsh Arabs. I've cited Thesiger now as explorer, so a revised ALT would be:

ALT0a ... that British explorer Wilfred Thesiger recorded information on the mustarjil, a gender identity associated with the Marsh Arabs of Iraq?

More pertinently, there's a long discussion on the talk page with Onceinawhile that is not yet resolved, so I'm not sure whether that would preclude this hook from running? Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would ask at WT:DYK; up to you whether to ask in the TDOR section or its own section.--Launchballer 08:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that British explorer Wilfred Thesiger recorded information on the mustarjil, a gender identity used among the Marsh Arabs of Iraq?

I'm proposing the above alternate hook as a slight variation on the one originally offered based on the article's talk page discussion. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WT:DYK: ALT3: ... that Masoud El Amaratly, one of Iraq's most popular folk singers in the 1920s (recording featured), was a mustarjil?--Launchballer 11:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

, approved ALT3. Please bear with me while I mess with some templates in this nom. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Edits recently made by Onceinawhile

Hello page watchers, to avoid an edit war, I would like to open a discussion about Onceinawhile's removal of references to mustarjil as a gender identity to the article, please see this diff. Described as a "copy edit" which is not the case, the editor appears to take issue with the description of mustarjil as a gender identity associated with Ahwari culture. This first was shown in a DYK review, see here

There are a range of sources in the article that describe it as such, and I would appreciate it if others editors could take a look:

• Ref 10 in the above diff Recovering Arab Trans History: Masoud El Amaratly, the Folk Music Icon from Iraq’s Marshes key excerpts that indicate mustarjil can be used as a descriptor for gender identity include: "While today, Iraq is widely seen as a conservative society in terms of gender norms, El Amaratly’s life shows how recent this change was. He was part of the Mustarjil gender identity, a transgender community in southern Iraq which challenged the stereotypical binary understanding of gender." & "Mustarjil is an Arabic term meaning “becoming [a] man.” Although it can be used derogatorily to refer to women who are perceived as having a masculine appearance and/or mannerisms, in Iraq’s marshes, it existed as a gender identity. Within the context of the Ahwari community, Mustarjil was a common gender identity, where people assigned female at birth decide to live as a man after puberty, and this decision was generally accepted in the community. The Mustarjils were one of many similar third gender categories around the world, such as the Hijras in South Asia."
• Ref 9 in the above diff Before Gender: "Massoud El Amaratly was a mustarjil (an Arabic term meaning "becoming a man")" & "Mustarjils like Massoud had lives parallel to trans men."
• Ref 8 in the above diff Sexualities: Transsexualities: Middle East, WestAfrica, NorthAfrica: "The work of a couple of German anthropologists, Sigrid Westphal-Hellbush and Heinz Westphal (1962), is consistent with Thesiger’s observations about mustarjils. They arm that many mustarjils declare their decision to lead a manly life after puberty, and this decision is generally accepted without opposition from the community. The young girl, if she has not already begun to live like a boy, henceforth dresses as a man and procures weapons for herself to take part in hunting and war campaigns"
• Ref 2 in the above diff Sexuality in the Middle East and North Africa: Contemporary Issues and ...: "The exception is the mustarjil from southern Iraq, who are described as women who adopt masculine gender expressions.

In my reading on the subject, all these references support the use of the phrase gender identity to describe mustarjil in the article. As an aside, this is not the only use of the word, and it has usage as a slur, which is also described here.

I welcome further comment from other editors on the phrasing for this page. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Left a note at Wikiproject LGBTQ+ Lajmmoore (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted Onceinawhile's edit; I agree that your wording is clear and backed up by the sources. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a misunderstanding about the reason for the change. It has been discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Masoud El Amaratly.

As I wrote there [None of the sources] support "Mustarjil is a gender identity associated with Ahwari culture". I asked an AI to "interpret the phrase "X is a Y identity associated with Z culture"". It responded: "semantically, the phrase means: “X is a specific form of Y identity that originates from, is recognized within, or is shaped by Z culture.”"

The sources confirm "recognized within", but not "originates from" or "shaped by".

My edits here removed the WP:SYNTH issues currently in the article, implying without evidence that Mustarjil are primarily Ahwari.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: originates from, is recognised within or shaped by. If the sources confirm one of those, then the wording associated with is perfectly acceptable; that's not SYNTH.

Also, be careful how much you trust the accuracy of AI. On this occasion the AI has not hallucinated something inappropriate, but that is not always the case. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

To respond to the discussion that @Onceinawhile has raised about whether the gender identity is connected to Ahwari culture (ref numbers in this diff):

1) this source [ref 10] states "Mustarjil ... in Iraq’s marshes, it existed as a gender identity. Within the context of the Ahwari community, Mustarjil was a common gender identity, where people assigned female at birth decide to live as a man after puberty, and this decision was generally accepted in the community."

2) This source (discussing Massoud El Amartly) states that he was from "an Ahwari farming community" and goes on to say that "In the patriarchal Ahwari society, male children were more celebrated and respected than girls, meaning mustarjil's transition elevated their social status" [ref 9], ergo mustarjil is Ahwari

3) Ahwari is a term used for Marsh Arabs (as is also Maʻdān) - this is cited in the Marsh Arabs article, see: Williams, Victoria (2020). Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 706.

4) Wilfred Thesiger's work is called The Marsh People which records his experiences living with these communities, including meeting and learning about mustarjil - this is cited in the article by Thesiger's book [ref 5}, and also this secondary source on Thesiger - the term used is Marsh Arab, but it is equivalent [ref 6]

Other wording from the sources:

5) this source describes the mustarjil as "from southern Iraq"

6) this source uses Marsh Arab or Maʻdān

You can see that two major sources uses Ahwari, but that Ahwari is also equivalent to Marsh Arab, or Maʻdān, which are used interchangeably across 4 further sources. I used Ahwari as that is the term used in the most recent scholarship of Erlick and Kaabour; the hyperlink goes to Marsh Arab article.

I do not see how WP:SYNTH applies here: the term is cited, in a variety of ways, by multiple sources.

To further respond to the comments as DYK - I removed an line from the article being reviewed, but that does not mean the information was unsupported either there or here. Rather, with reviews, I try to find compromise and removing a sentence a reviewer took issue with felt like a productive way forwards with the review, especially since the same information is available and cited in this article. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with OwenBlacker's comment. It reads like an argument for intentional ambiguity. If we can be more clear, we should be.

Lajmmore, I appreciate your constructive engagement on this. Personally I don’t think that we have established that mustarjil are primarily or originally Marsh Arabs. It may the case, but establishing that requires a higher level of proof than we have obtained.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the article claims that it originates there, but more that all the sources connect the term to Ahwari/Marsh Arab culture. There's deliberately no "Origins" section as there is simply no information I could find on that. Nor did I read any other geographical associations in the research I undertook for the article. In terms of a higher level of proof, perhaps you are right, but there are seven separate reliable sources to support the connection between mustarjil and Ahwari culture. I feel like that is a goodly amount. One compromise that I think we could make is to alter "Ahwari gender identity" heading to "Gender identity associated with Ahwari culture" (as in the lead). Lajmmoore (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

associated with is perfectly normal wording that does not necessarily imply anything about origination. Yes, we should be more clear if we can, but it doesn't appear that we can. If sourcing is sparse, I maintain it's perfectly reasonable to use the phrasing gender identity associated with Ahwari culture — possibly adding that its origin is unclear, if sources support that (rather than OR) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

So as far as my reading has shown, there's not yet any discussion about the origins of the term. It appears to me there are three phases of discussion of the term: in The Marsh Arabs by Thesiger; in the German anthropology that corroborates Thesiger's observations; writing from the 2020s by Erlick and Kaabour. None of the sources, as far as I can see, discuss distant origins at all, so there's nothing to reference to say "we don't know" as it just isn't mentioned. This is why I didn't mention origins in the article. Frustrating as it is, we can only go by what the sources tell us, which in this case is, repeatedly that its a gender identity associated with Ahwari/Ma-dan/Marsh Arab culture. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: as you say: we can only go by what the sources tell us. The sources do not say “associated with”. That is your drafting. Please use more precise language. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Onceinawhile I feel like this is becoming a very circular discussion. I've done a little editing to add slightly more context to some of the statements, actually based on the lists above. Overall the language I have used in the article feels to me as precise as it can be made, according to my readings of the sources, and without resorting to original research.

RE: the comment above - I suggested "associated with" above as a compromise as you appear to have strong feelings about the association with Ahwari culture, but I don't think "associated with" is appropriate either! On evidence, there are 7 separate reliable sources that associate mustarjil with Ahwari/Marsh Arab/Ma-dan culture (as outlined above) and the terms are viewed as equivalent to each other (see three in the second list).

Thinking of further potential compromises, we could remove Ahwari from the heading "Ahwari gender identity"? Another suggestion is to explicitly add a footnote that says that Ahwari/Marsh Arab/Ma-dan interchangeable terms, and that different ones are used in different sources?

Do you have further constructive suggestions, that are based on the sources? Lajmmoore (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

My primary concern is the emphasis in this article given to one region of the Arab world (i.e. WP:DUEWEIGHT), without a source explicitly justifying the emphasis. For example, our first source states only Kaabour cites the Levantine term for a queer woman, mistarjila…, i.e. it only mentions the Levant, not southern Iraq. (By the way, the Romanization is different in the male and female versions of the word that we give, which is confusing and suggests a lack of knowledge of Arabic. It is just the “a” on the end – the Tā' marbūṭa that denotes the feminine).

In the Arabic wikipedia, the term is used in only one article title, for the French film Tomboy (2011 film) (ar:الفتاة المسترجلة (فلم 2011)), which reads "al-fatat [the girl] al-mustarjala". Again, this is generic usage, with no regional emphasis.

The key question in my mind is do we have any sources that generically cover the topic of this article which then go on to emphasize Southern Iraq? It seems that the only sources we have that are doing that are sources about Southern Iraq, which is the wrong way round.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

On the Arabic, its @Mohammad hajeer and @OwenBlacker who added the etymology and much of the contemporary usage, so I can't speak to that.

In my reading, to answer the final question, I'm not sure what kind of generic article you might mean, do you mean something more generically on LGBT+ issues in Iraq, or something else? As I have mentioned above, the sources that there are do focus on this region, and do not mention use of the term as a gender identity elsewhere. My impression is that is the nature of the research that people have undertaken, at the present time.

On the first source that you mention (ref 1 in this diff), it does just refer the Levant, but that article is discussing the term's use as a slur, not as a gender identity, hence the different geography i.e. at different times in different areas the word has different meanings - one of which at least in the mid-20th century in Ahwari communities was as a gender identity. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued good faith discussion here.

My concern is simply that the DUEWEIGHT assessment for coverage of Ahwari in this article is not coming from sources that primarily focus on the topic of this article. Rather, it relies on Ahwari-focused sources, with no third party evidence to assess the appropriate weight. The Ahwari-focused structure of the first sentence in the lede is a symptom of this problem.

I have looked up this word in Arabic and it is consistently used in a generic sense. The idea that there is a unique Ahwari sub-identity here appears to be WP:OR.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not denying there is also a generic use (hence the section). There is also, as recorded and discussed in a range of sources, this other additional use, and I reject that the section on gender identity is WP:OR.

As outlined above there are seven different reliable sources that record use as gender identity, and that the term Ahwari seems to me to be interchangeably used with the other terms of Ma-dan and Marsh Arab to describe the culture within which the identity has been observed.

To suggest (yet another) compromise, perhaps moving the sections, so the contemporary usage section is read after etymology, which might address the DUEWEIGHT concern?

Another compromise could be to use Marsh Arab in the article instead of Ahwari? As I said above I used Ahwari as it was used by the most recent scholarship, but then Thesiger's book is called Marsh Arab. Would that change allay a concern?

It would be very helpful if you could engage with some of the other compromises here and further above e.g. just having a heading gender identity, or provide further suggestions, for how to proceed. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that any change is necessary.

@Onceinawhile, I am sure you are acting in good faith, but this is beginning to feel like WP:BLUDGEONING over the definition of "associated with".

Nothing in this article is suggesting that this is a unique Ahwari sub-identity, but Lucy has repeatedly pointed out that there are reliable sources attesting to this being a gender identity that is related to the Ahwari or Marsh Arabs; that is clearly not OR.

If you can find additional sources to expand the context of the article, that would be useful, but I am not convinced that there is much benefit in continuing to discuss this point. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate Lajmmoore’s comment. Owen, with respect I find your comment (and the one above) doesn’t progress the discussion.

The compromises would help but unfortunately don’t address my underlying concern, which is that I do not see any evidence that there is a special “Ahwari usage” of the term, in addition to the generic use. All the sources provided re Ahwari’s could simply be (and probably are) the generic use.

FWIW, I have no concern at all re Marsh Arab vs. Ahwari terminology.

I apologize to Owen if this feels to you like bludgeoning. It feels to me like my point is not being acknowledged or understood. If you are able to acknowledge (and refute?) my core concern, you can start measuring bludgeoning from that point on.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't Lucy's comments and the sources in the article demonstrate the Marsh Arab connection?

The reason I mentioned bludgeoning is because I think both Lucy and I have heard and acknowledged your point repeatedly, we just believe you are incorrect. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate that. I don’t feel my point has been acknowledged at all, which may well be my fault for not communicating it well.

It is a very specific point:

• We all agree the sources on Marsh Arabs confirm that this identity exists within the Marsh Arab community.
• But that is a very different thing from having sources that either:
  • are focused on mustarjil in the general sense, and confirm any particular emphasis on Marsh Arabs (as the weighting of both the article’s first sentence, and its body, imply)
  • state explicitly that the usage of the term amongst Marsh Arabs is somehow different to the generic use of the term (as Lucy has suggested)

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both. To refer to those two final points @Onceinawhile:

• General sense on mustarjil - I haven't come across a publication that covers the topic. I understand you'd like to see wider sources, but I just don't think that scholarship has been undertaken. I think that would be excellent research to include, but we can't include it if it doesn't exist? (however much it might be desired)

• The Thesiger text, which discusses mustarjil is based entirely on his life in a Marsh Arab community, and his meetings with mustarjil there; this was then confirmed by the Westphal research also within the same communities he visited. This is then further confirmed by the Erlick and Kaabour sources, and others in the article. This confirms emphasis on Marsh Arabs (as does below)

• Explicit difference in the terms: see Kaabour "Mustarjil is an Arabic term meaning “becoming [a] man.” Although it can be used derogatorily to refer to women who are perceived as having a masculine appearance and/or mannerisms, in Iraq’s marshes, it existed as a gender identity. Within the context of the Ahwari community, Mustarjil was a common gender identity, where people assigned female at birth decide to live as a man after puberty, and this decision was generally accepted in the community. The Mustarjils were one of many similar third gender categories around the world, such as the Hijras in South Asia."
• This is very helpful: "FWIW, I have no concern at all re Marsh Arab vs. Ahwari terminology."

One thing I am finding is that the issues keep evolving each time I answer them, despite the article remaining much the same: firstly it was a WP:SYNTH concern; then that "Personally I don’t think that we have established that mustarjil are primarily or originally Marsh Arabs"; then an issue with "associated with"; then "My concern is simply that the DUEWEIGHT"; then concern over WP:OR. On each occasion I try to present the evidence from the sources as I see it, which is becoming quite repetitive. I've suggested several compromises or alternatives, based on these shifting concerns, which are not always addressed in responses. I have heard and continue to hear your concerns, but I can't fabricate the sources you hope for to allay them.

I would really like us to move to some kind of consensus. In the last comment, it appears that the lead is a concern for you, so (using this diff) the current lead reads:

... is an Arabic language term, as well as a gender identity associated with the Ahwari culture; the term equates with 'becoming a man' and is used for women who have adopted a masculine gender expression through choice or economic necessity. Lives of mustarjil people are recorded by British writer Wilfred Thesiger who lived with the Ahwari in the 1950s; his observations were supplemented by the work of anthropologists Sigrid Westphal-Hellbush and Heinz Westphal. In 21st-century usage the term has misogynistic overtones. In Islamic tradition, the "mustarjila" (masculinized woman) is condemned; according to prophetic hadiths, she is cursed and thereby excluded from God's mercy.

How about a lead along the lines of:

... is an Arabic language term, as well as a gender identity associated with the Ahwari culture. In 21st-century usage the term is applied to women who resemble men and has misogynistic overtones. Its use as a term for gender identity is recorded in 20th-century Ahwari communities, by both the British writer Wilfred Thesiger in the 1950s and by the work of anthropologists Sigrid Westphal-Hellbush and Heinz Westphal, who confirmed his observations.

As suggested above, I can move the section on gender identity to lower in the article (although that does take the content out of chronological order).

If you have other suggestions, based on the sources, or new ones, I would welcome them. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to add, I wonder if it is useful to get more people involved in this discussion? A fourth pair of eyes might be helpful? @DocWatson42 you were interested when it was in draft space, do you have a view, or further advice for us? Lajmmoore (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps when I have more time to read the above discussion. ^_^;;; —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Onceinawhile, I'm coming back to this discussion to see if we can move forwards to some compromise/consensus? Lajmmoore (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lajmmoore, I think an outside opinion would be useful to help us proceed. I am stuck at your comment above: General sense on mustarjil - I haven't come across a publication that covers the topic. This has also been my fundamental problem with how this article has been written - we don’t have an anchor to point to when considering WP:DUE. Arguably without that general publication, the article does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean I disagree - we can't wish for sources to come into being that don't exist. I will also note this is yet another different argument that you're now bringing in - DUE was mentioned earlier but SIGCOV - so this is the fourth (?) version of an argument that seems to be mostly based on a personal opinion.

I note again, throughout this extremely long discussion, no further sources have been provided to actively improve the article, and, again, the various suggestions I made above to try to address your concerns are ignored.

So, where shall we find another opinion? I don't think @DocWatson42 has time and @OwenBlacker has already been involved. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile would you put a proposal in at WP:THIRD? Lajmmoore (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I might have some time this week, and if, not, more definitely next week. (Lajmmoore: From the tone of your first paragraph and a half—all that I saw in the preview—I thought I had another editor annoyed with me, not addressing a third party. ^_^; ) DocWatson42 (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree; this very much feels to me like BLUDGEONing and IDONTLIKEIT.

As @Lajmmoore said, we can't wish for sources to come into being that don't exist. If @Onceinawhile is acting in good faith here, they do not have a consensus and need to find other editors who might support their position. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that the DYK nomination is proposed to run on Trans Day of Remembrance, subject (?) to this discussion's outcome Lajmmoore (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue seems to be one of a potential lack of notability. The normal forum for deciding notability is WP:AFD. A nomination there seems the most expedient solution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's a disagreement on notability. Merely one contributor disagreeing with a single piece of wording. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

” This has also been my fundamental problem with how this article has been written - we don’t have an anchor to point to when considering WP:DUE. Arguably without that general publication, the article does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Any one contributor is entitled to disagree with wording or indeed nominate an article for deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile, I am looking through sources and see support for "in Iraq", "in 19th- and 20th-century Iraq", and "in southern Iraq" specifically. I'll start a bibliography below, so I don't disrupt this discussion. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, DocWatson42, Lajmmoore, Onceinawhile, and OwenBlacker: Okay, I've listed some sources below. I don't think these support "associated with Iraq" but rather something like "in Iraq". It also does seem appropriate and WP:DUE weight to mention southern Iraq, Marsh Arabs, and the named scholars. Hope the quotes and sources below will help resolve the issue, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Rjjiii for finding these additional sources - the time and effort is very much appreciated. Thank you for your comments on the text also. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Bibliography

In Iraq

A Global History of Love Between Women: "the mustergil in Iraq (p.89)". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Transgender Encyclopedia: "In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and possibly before, Southern Iraq had the tradition of the mustergil, who were socially recognized female at birth but who had taken an oath to live as a man. [...] In the contemporary Middle East, the situation is difficult for gender-nonconforming people (p. 144)." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

"United Nations A/79/172": "the female mustergil of southern Iraq (p. 4/22)" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Anuario de derecho civil, Volume 43, 1990: "Irak meridional conocido como « mustergil » (p. 700)" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Diccionario de la homofobia: "En Irak existen los mustergil, mujeres biológicas que se visten de hombres y se libran así de muchas de las res- tricciones normales impuestas a las mujeres ... (p. 357)." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Gender, Sexuality and the Criminal Laws in the Middle East and North Africa: A Comparative Study: "mustergil , a female - to - male transvestite tradition in Southern Iraq (p. 85)." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Homosexualities, Muslim Cultures and Modernity: "Mustergil role that women took on in southern Iraq in the mid - twentieth century , when they chose to live as men , enjoying the privileges of the male patriarchal culture and usually not marrying ( Westphal - Hellbusch , 1997 ) ..." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

"Institutionalized Gender Crossing in Southern Iraq": "During our study of the Ma'dan clans of the lower Euphrates-Tigris [...] (p. 233 [1])" ← Sigrid Westphal-Hellbusch is very frequently cited. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Before Gender: Lost Stories from Trans History, 1850-1950: "Mustarjils like Masoud had lives parallel to trans men. They were assigned female at birth and lived as men. In the patriarchal Ahwari society, male children were more celebrated and respected than girls, meaning mustarjil’s transition elevated their social status. (pp.60–63)" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Psychology of Sex and Gender: "In Iraq, mustergil are women who live like men but can return to the female gender role to marry" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

History, Women and Gender in the Modern Middle East: "Similarly, among the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq, women who choose not to marry are known to become surrogate men (mustarajil)." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In contrast to other identities

Law and (Dis)Order in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at Ghent, Belgium, 15–19 July 2013: "Societies that recognize more than two gender categories vary in how they reference nonnormative statuses. Names, verbs, and pronouns can align with either anatomical sex or social gender/sexuality. [footnote →] Pronoun examples from the Middle East: Iraqi mustarjil (sex/gender unaligned), Thesiger 1964:165; Omani xanith (aligned), Wikan 1982: 175; Turkish ibne and köçek (unaligned), Janssen 1992: 87; Jewish Iraqi dhakar binta (unaligned), Sofer 1992: 106, 111 (p. 184)." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience: "mustergil, biological women who dress as men in order to free themselves of the many restrictions normally imposed on women; this phenomenon appears to be partially tolerated by the community. Similarly, in Oman, there are the xaniths" (Khanith) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Female Desires: Same-sex Relations and Transgender Practices Across Cultures: "Would cases such as the mustergil in southern Iraq ( Westphal - Hellbusch 1997 ) or the female husbands in African woman-marriages fit the category? (p.23)" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

"Institutionalized Gender-Crossing in Southern Iraq": Through the mustergil can live as a man she can never gain the same status as a man principally for legal reasons governing inheritance (1997:233-237). What we learn about her relationship to women, however, is virtually nothing. Westphal-Helbusch states that the phenomenon is not sexually motivated (ibid.:234), and we are led to assume that the mustergil is celibate. Dickemann's overview of historical work on the 'sworn virgin' of the Balkans, similarly refers to an institutionalized female-to-male cross-gendering where women 'completely' assumed male identity (p. 97)" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Broader usage

The Martyrs of Najrân: New Documents: "Syriac text [...] city of Najrân [...] masculine in her deeds" ← According to R. B. Serjeant's book review, Irfan Shahîd (1971) translated the Arabic form of "mustarjil" as "masculine in her deeds" here while discussing a gender-nonconforming martyr from Najran. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

"BLUSHING IN THE FIELD: Deconstructing Sexual Sites and Meanings": "While there has been some interesting discussion of male to female transsexualism in Muslim societies" material on women who are able to take on recognized roles which are associated with aspects of typically male privilege is extremely limited. Westphal-Hellbusch offers an extremely brief though provocative account of a mustergil — a woman who lives as a man, dressing in male clothing, spending time in men's company and engaging in male pursuits — in southern Iraq (p. 97)" ← "in Muslim societies" here is phrased to apply overall, while Westphal-Hellbusch's research is phrased to apply to southern Iraq. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)