Talk:Transsexual/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Organizing subsections

Smartgirl62 has brought up some excellent points about splitting the main article into smaller ones. It is getting too long right now.

The etiology section (causes of transsexualism) is good and could be split into a sub-article with summary style in the main article. It appears we also need an article on transsexual taxonomies that have been proposed over the years. I recommend we take a minute to think about larger issues of organization, to save a little effort revising later.

Smartgirl just started an article on the BBL theory, but I believe we should step back for a minute and think about the name of the article. "BBL theory" is inaccurate for a few reasons. First, it is a behavioral model, not a theory. Second, it is in apposition to models of gender identity. It categorizes people by sexual orientation: homosexuality or paraphilia. It also suggests this is their "motivation" for transition. While BBL is a good shorthand for this, there are others who have promulgated this model, including Kurt Freund and Ken Zucker at the Clarke Institute.

In addition to behavioral models which classify observed phenomena, we need to organize causation hypotheses to explain observed phenomena. While they interact, some taxonomies make no direct claims regarding causation.

The concepts can broadly be classified in the following categories:

Heredity

Nature/genes

Environment

Prenatal factors

Social factors

Supernatural

Possession

Divine gift/curse

Or in the case of medicalized models, in terms of disability/disease:

Psychosexual pathology (BBL etc)

Psychopathology (GID etc)

Pathology (“birth defect” etc)

Some of the above is first blush thinking on organization, but it might help demonstrate patterns more clearly to contextualize and structure things a bit. Much of the controversy is about differential diagnosis and the ramifications of those. A lot of the “two-type” stuff like homosexual/autogynephile is related to the Benjamin Scale, which should be acknowledged as an influence in the primary/true/classic vs. secondary/pseudo/non-classic debate. Most of the debate is about who is a “real transsexual” (to use Anne Lawrence’s defensive self-description) and who is not. Lawrence’s work can be seen as a power move within an established medicalized hierarchy.

It’s clear to everyone that there are a wide range of identities and expressions currently described as “transsexual,” but the debate centers on how many (if any) subsets exist within that group, and where the threshold for inclusion lies. Some (myself included) are beginning to ask if the term is even worth defending or saving in the long run, since it seems to have been appropriated by many who see it as more socially acceptable than the way the had been labeled previously.

We also need to be clear that these taxonomies have only been applied to MTF trans people, because BBL & co. think FTMs are a monolithic group for some reason, or that "paraphilia" does not occur in "females" (as they seem to see FTMs).

Finally the article needs to lay out some larger issues: does “transsexual” describe a trait? A behavior? A desire? A medical procedure? A political identity? A disease? All have been proposed, but I don’t think there is any consensus on even this most basic issue.

We might also think about a template and a series of articles like the box at the top of Sexual orientation.

Thanks to Smartgirl62 for bringing up some important issues about the direction of this series of articles! Jokestress 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Like many others, I also feel that this article is becoming too long.

The section on "Causes of transsexualism" is one on which a new article could be started. The new article could include information about etiology and taxonomy not presently included, as you have proposed.

I added a paragraph to the section on "defining transsexualism" to address your concerns about whether transsexualism describes a trait, behavior, etc. I agree that there is no consensus on this issue. As you know, there are many theories, but none of them have been proven. I am a TS woman too, and I really don't care what caused me to be this way. However, it is important to me that transsexual people are accepted within the larger society. Of course, Wikipedia is not the place for us to promote our agenda though.

Speaking of that, I have made significant edits to this article over the past year or so, and I feel like it is much more NPOV now than it used to be. Even though I disagree with BBL, religious conservatives, etc. on many things, I think the article should fairly address their viewpoints. I feel like the article is pretty neutral right now, but there are probably some people who would disagree.

I also think this article should include a section on "Coming out", perhaps as a subsection under "legal and social aspects". In my case, coming out to my family has been one of the hardest parts of my whole transition.

Many sections of this article already summarize other articles, and I think "causes of transsexualism" will probably be the next one. I have also considered moving some of the information in the section on "Diagnosing transsexualism" to the article on gender identity disorder. As anyone who knows anything about transsexualism and transgenderism can see, they are very complex subjects. I like the idea of a template which links to all of the major articles on transgender topics. I have also thought about starting a Transgender portal. What do you think about that idea?

Finally, my goal regarding this article is for it to be a featured article. I know it still needs a lot of work; right now, there are a lot of statements in the article which are marked as needing citations. Anyone reading this who has time, please try to locate sources for these statements. I will also work on this when I have time.

Andrea Parton 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• For one more thing, I have also considered moving the lists of external links which are specific to TS women and TS men to the articles transwoman and transman. I will probably do this in a few days if there is no opposition. Andrea Parton 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and started an article on Etiology of Transsexualism. I moved everything from the "causes of transsexualism" section to that article and summarized it here, but the new article can be expanded. I am starting to feel like the section on "sex reassignment therapy" needs some restructure. For one thing, the biggest part of the section focuses on psychotherapy for transpeople. As this article is still 55 kb long, it might be a good idea to start a new article on psychological treatment for transsexual people as well, which could include sections on supportive psychotherapy for those who are transitioning, as well as sections on "ex-trans" ministries, etc.

As for BBL taxonomy and other taxonomies, if anyone would like to write an article on that, feel free to do so. As for who is a "real transsexual", the section on "diagnosing transsexualism" includes some other potential motives for transition and states that many professionals feel that only "real transsexuals" should be allowed to transition. I, for one, believe that any person should be allowed to transition as long as their intent to do so is consistent and their gender dysphoria is not secondary to treatable mental problems or serious mental illnesses. Of course, the latter can be difficult to verify, at least in the minds of some therapists. Of course, some people view all cases of gender dysphoria as mental illness, but most in the transsexual community, like me, do not. I know that some people may still feel like this article is biased in favor of the trans community, but Rebecca recently pointed out that the paragraph in this article on the children of transsexual people sounded like something that would be said by an ex-trans ministry. I edited the paragraph to try to address her concern. What this article really needs is a peer review, to get the opinion of the whole Wikipedia community, but I think there are a few issues that we should sort out first.

Andrea Parton 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo removal

I just removed a photo of three scantily-clad Thai kathoey that had been added as an illustration. I believe this is problematic as it reinforces a sexualized stereotype and the prevailing idea that "transsexual" means male-to-female. If anyone wishes to make a case for its inclusion, please do so here. Jokestress 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your concern, the fact is that this article has no pictures at current, and there is one at Kathoey, which is an example of transsexuality. That it happens to represent an image that many don't like is not a reason to avoid it; at the very least, it should be put in this article's section on non-western transsexuality where kathoey are discussed. Perhaps you can find another lead image that is better representative of transsexuality as a whole? Postdlf 05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

African American and Asian don't seem to need photos of hot chicks as lead images, and in the case of Asian, they don't have any photos in the article. That seems like a good precedent here. Jokestress 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If the pic of Beyonce were the only pic of an African American in the system, then I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be the lead until a more appropriate one is chosen. I also don't see Asian as a "precedent" just because no one has yet illustrated it; that's probably less a conscious decision than a lack of work. This isn't an article I've been previously involved with so I'll leave it to those who have been, but I'll urge you to at least add the image to the section on non-Western transsexualism, where kathoey are discussed. Postdlf 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have considered adding photos to this article. However, I don't consider the photo of the kathoey in lingerie to be a very appropriate photo for the article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the section on non-western cultures. The trans symbol might make for a good intro photo. Other possible photos in the article might include a trans film poster in the "media depictions" section, and possibly, a before and after photo of a transsexual person for the "sex reassignment therapy" section. However, I don't know if the latter would be very encyclopedic, even though that is the area in which "a picture speaks a thousand words". But the main reason I have wanted to add photos to the article has been that articles are required to have photos to be featured on the main page. Of course, they must also be featured articles, but I feel like progress is being made towards that goal with this article.

Andrea Parton 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that we're making good progress towards getting a chance to be a featured article. Of course, if and when that happens, we can expect some of the most vicious vandalism, and I would certainly not like to have the page go up as a feature article with a bunch of pictures of scantly clad transsexual women. It simply does not help the view that many transsexuals would like to project (that we're just like "normal" women.) I'd say a better precident for what photos should be in our article would be Woman and Man... of course the first photo on the woman's page is a naked female, but at least she's in a more encyclopedic pose, rather than one specifically intended to elicit masculine sexual interest. --Puellanivis 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. What kind of a photo could be representative of all transsexuals everywhere. I do not think any one photo would do it. It would take a photo composed of many smaller photos to show the wide variety and diversity of transsexual people. (leave the broader transgender category out). Many many TS women earn their living doing just what those Kathoey have done and actually enjoy it. Most do not. I agree that I, a scientist, do not want people to think of a hypersexualized image when they think of me. But at the same time there is no denying the heightened sssssexual awareness, or self conciousness we awaken in others.

So as to the proposal of a large photo (say about 300 pixes across) showing many smaller photos of various transpeople. I will create one when I have time. What say you all? --Hfarmer 01:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will remove it if you do. Sexualised representations will be shot on sight. Rebecca 03:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about sexualized representations. There are plenty of not as explicit pictures of transpeople from around the world on the net. The trouble will be finding source pictures which are public domain. I would intend to show a wide variety of pictures one or two of which would be people who had done adult entertainment for a living. Not in any explicit pose. It would also contain MOSTLY regular looking people who are transsexual with no discrimination based on how they look. I would want to show that how a transman/woman can look will vary from the model like to internally beautiful, across all racial, religious, national lines. Basically I would want someone to look at this picutre and see that there are transsexuals everywhere in the world.

I know. I would assemble it of the pictures used in the articles on the list of transgendered persons here on wikipedia. How could those photos be objectionable? As it is 2:06 AM CDST and I am exhausted I will not be doing this for at least ten hours. Really think about what I am saying. --Hfarmer 07:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo proposal

This is not what I would want as a final photo identically but it should be something like this. Perhaps this one or at least the same concept.

File:Whatihaveinmind.jpg

Transsexuals come from all walks of life.

I would like to find more black people. Not to be racial or racist but sometimes it seems black TS's are truly invisible.

Aside from that last comment of mine this seems like a sound concept. --Hfarmer 12:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will still revert any such image, as a) it isn't clear that those people gave their permission to be put in there, or that the person who took the images has allowed them to be freely usable, b) several of the photographs are highly sexual, c) no other photo on a group of people has such a collage, and d) the article could be covered quite simply by a single photo, as done elsewhere. Rebecca 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for jutting in my comment here, but I just... wow. *Looks at the collage again* um... yeah, would you mind saying WHICH photographs that you find to be highly sexual? Honestly, I think there are more sexualized pictures of children on the internet that are not considered pornography. What? If a girl has a glint in her eye, she's suddenly taking a "highly sexual" picture? Frankly, I'm dumbfounded. Absolutely none of those pictures are even any where near how sexualized the naked picture of a woman at Woman is. Holy cow, I never thought I would expect to meet a puritanical transsexual on the internet cooperating on the free flow of information on Wikipedia! Sexually suggestive is not a sufficient criterium to declare something "highly sexual", a woman in a playboy bunny suit is sexual, as the playboy bunny is sexualized, a woman however in a teeny-weeny yellow polka dot bikini on any woman is however not sexual in the modern American culture. While I expect a level of dignity to be observed in any pictures of transsexuals put on this page, we need not declare a picture "highly sexual" just because it has a transsexual woman with a glint in her eye, or a kathooie wearing a dress that would be appropriate to any social event! To HFarmer, if you want to avoid all this issue, and you have the conviction to do so, take the picture that you have of yourself in that collage and use it for the article. By all accounts, no one could argue that you do not have permission to put yor own face on Wikipedia in a picture that you had taken for you. (For anyone with a knowledge of copyright law, even if someone takes the picture of you, it's possible to argue that it was a work-for-hire, and thus is your own personal copyright.) Honestly, I would rather see this debate ended with the picture of HFarmer up there. And if anyone takes it down, for claims of copyright issues, or sexual suggestiveness, or the other two issues (especially as they would be exageratedly unapplicable in this situation) then I would think we have a larger issue here of some transsexual women of Wikipedia simply not wanting to post any pictures of transsexual women at all. Honestly, I've been considering of uploading a picture of myself just to settle this "we need a photo/everyone hates our photos" --Puellanivis 06:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I would have to have a better picture of myself taken. Perhaps professionally. Not really sure I want that kind of exposure I am not a public personality. However I have meet Miriam once, can't say I know her though. If I ever do see her again I will bring this up. By one degree of separation I could get in contact with Gia Darling or Allana (SP?) Starr and obtain their permission to use a picture of one of them for this. I mean they have been on TV. I WOULD ONLY DO THAT IF I HAD ASSURANCES THAT REBECA WOULD NOT OBJECT ANYWAY.

--Hfarmer 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What? First of all those pictures are all public domain pictures of transsexuals who are out and pretty well known. A few of whom have been on TV. This is who all is in there in order from left to right... Calpernia Addams, Buck Angel, Nina Arsenault, Ben Barres, Andrea James, Georgina Beyer,Patrick Califia,The Lady Chablis,Angela Clayton,Miriam Rivera,Roberta Close,Caroline Cossey, Transgender Symbol,Kelly van der Veer, Kathoey performing in a very nice gown, Dana International, The next two are from articles linked toTranssexuality in Iran, Gia Darling, my humble self, and a Pakistani Hijra. Phew Which I think even for a preliminary picture gives a pretty compleat cross section of the transsexuals. It hit many religions, clutures, races, lines of work, countries of origin. I think it shows that the transsexual condition is part of the whole human condition and transcends all those boundaries.

It is not a state secret that anyone in those pictures is a transsexual. Many of them have been on national and international TV. The pictures are public domanin all of them so that implies permission for anyone to use them. Last but not least what's sexual about any of them? I mean so I only picked transsexuals who pass. Is that what's sexual about them? I mean that may be considered limiting by those who think they will never or could never pass. But the fact of the matter is with enough work Homer Simpson could pass as well as Constance Harm. Those who initially do not pass will eventually. It is that final true face that I, and most other, transsexual want to be the true face of the transsexual. Not the stubbly face of Barney Rubble in a dress (who moreoever does not want to shave!).--Hfarmer 12:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't actually any answer any of my points. I didn't state that none of them were transsexual. I stated that, to repeat myself, a) all the images were copyright violations - just because they are public figures does absolutely not make the images public domain, b) several of them were highly sexual, which is inappropriate for an article such as this, c) no other photo on a group of people has such a collage, and d) the article could be covered quite simply by a single photo, as done elsewhere. Frankly, this whole discussion creeps me out. Rebecca 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above this is only a first effort. I will take your input under consideration but your points make little sense. In the following I ask you for clarification.

Which ones in that picture are highly sexual? Be specific. I have even asked my family members if that picture looks sexual to them. They agree with me that they are not. Perhaps my community has become desisitized to sexuality. Tell me whih ones are sexual and I will look for other pictures to substitute them in a final picuture.

Most of those images come from wikipedia articles and were uploaded into the public domain GFDL'd just like every other picture on wikipedia (ie the picture of caroline cossey). As for the other pictures the sources from which they were taken had no notice of copyright what so ever, therefore I can assume they are not copywrighted. Therefore those pictures are also public domain and can be used and reused by anyone.

As for the collage and how well the article could be coverd by a single photo... Firstly other articles are about much more homogenous groups of people. May I ask which photo should that be representing all TS's everywhere? Should it be the Iranian transwomen? You cannot say they are oversexualized they are totally covered. Should it be the Kahthoey? Oh I realize you do not like that one already. How about the Biologist who is a ftm? But ftm's really are not as common as mtf's by any measure. What race should represent Transsexuals? What occupation is most typical, what religion, what country of origin,... I could go on forever. There is no one picture that can reflect all of that diversity that I know of. Nor is there any one person every TS in the world would agree is represtanttive of them. There are many wrinkles to the Transsexual experience. I am attempting to represent all of them.

Please make a counter proposal. What picture, what one picture would you post? Put it here and we can debate the merits of both ideas in a more inteligent way. As I have said above it is hard for me to visualize just one picture spanning the whole set of transsexuals.

Go see the texas chainsaw massacre that'll get you over the creeps.

--Hfarmer 10:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You still have absolutely no understanding of copyright law. You cannot assume anything with images - either you have clear evidence that they have been released under a free license or into the public domain, or you cannot use them. Uploading onto the internet, or even onto Wikipedia, doth not a free image make. Rebecca 02:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the proposal for such a collage photo of transsexual people. On one hand, it would demonstrate the diversity of transsexual people, but on another, not all aspects of diversity could be covered by any collage that could be practically placed in this article (or any Wikipedia article), and I agree with Rebecca that sexualized images are not appropriate in this article and that a few of the images in the collage were somewhat sexualized, specifically the ones of the Kathoey, Miriam Rivera, and Nina Arsenault.

Finally, just because a work such as a photograph, poem, prose, video, etc. does not contain a copyright notice does not mean that it is not protected by copyright law. Nowadays, all such works are assumed to be copyrighted unless their author specifically states that they are granted to the public domain, or they were published so long ago that their copyright has expired. In the United States, works published in 1922 and earlier can be assumed to be in the public domain.

Yes, many of the images in your collage are included in Wikipedia articles on the subjects of the photographs. However, many of them contain fair use tags on their Image pages, meaning that they are copyrighted, but that the person who submitted them believes that their use in the articles on their subjects constitutes fair use. Using the same images in a collage like the one you proposed might not be fair use. Therefore, copyright laws will be a major issue in trying to create a usable collage like the one you proposed.

Andrea Parton 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree. I also note that a well-known WP editor appears in the collage :) Furthermore, it's not representative to just have chosen passable trans folks for the collage as this most certainly doesn't reflect reality. So, in all, I'm not sure how adding a picture will add to the usefulness of the article, copyright issues aside - Alison^✍ 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Many groups are this diverse. We have pictures for women and men; I'm sure, if necessary, we can pick something suitable for this article. There is no need for this profoundly creepy collage. Rebecca 02:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok that's feed back I can work with. As far as having a picture of a well know WP editor I knew that. So what? Is she not TS , out and the subject of a full wikipedia article? As for the sexuality of the pictures the only thing sexual about the pictuers of Nina Arsenault, Miriam Rivera, and the kahtoey is that they are wearing clothes that display their cleaveage to some extent and they are standing at profile. Believe it or not those are the least sexual pictures I could find of any of those subjects. Frankly I do not see how those are so sexual anyway. To hear you all talk they would be porno. But I will aceed to your demands and find different pictures of those same people surely one will be acceptable.

As for copyright concerns. To settle the fears of anyone that any picture int he collage will be a violation should I find and link everyone of them here so that you can see for yourselves what their status is? Would that settle the matter? Then should I assemble said approved pictures into the collage.

Do NOT waste my time if you are of the mind that this article should not be illustrated. Say because, illustrating this article with any pictures at all would "sexualize" it. I get the feeling that some here are of that frame of mind.

I really do not see what's creepy about the collage. I like the subtle messages in it. When it comes to art I guess everyone's a critic. --Hfarmer 16:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. User:Jokestress, you might, y'know, want to maybe ask her first? No? Re. the collage of images, you might want to look at Image:Women_montage,_black_borders,_darker_Frau_background.jpg from Women to see how licensing of composite images can be done really well and dispel issues of copyright. I'm not of the "sexualise" frame of mind, BTW, but can see where issues can arise. Besides, by your own admission, you've only used passable transpeople. Is this not a misrepresentation in itself? - Alison^✍ 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for seeing this partly the way I do. If I am interpreting what you said correctly then you also see nothing much sexual about those pictures. As for asking Andrea's permission I could but why? Why give her prefferential treatment over the others? Should I fly to montreal, newyork Tehran and California to check with the others as well? :-) I think not. Besides as I have said it is not a state secret that any of those people are transsexual. Some of them have made a good deal of money off the fact that they are.

As for passability. I feel that passing can beachieved by anyone who is willing to go the extra mile to get it. Either in the form of starting hormones very young and taking all the risk that implies. Or by spending lots of money on surgeries when relatively old and all the risk that entails. Either way it can be done. That face, that passing face, should be the face of transsexualism. Not the face of someone who has yet to finish beard removal or has only been on hormones and just began. Perhaps a second picture or set of pcitures can illustrate transformation. A before and after. But even then the difference will vary by age, (Surely you admit the experience is much different for someone much younger than yourself.) and direction of the change m==>f and f==>m. If transformation is to be well illustrated this differences must be illustrated as well. Which can be tricky.

Right, because a transexual woman who hasn't finished her beard removal, and just begun hormones is totally unpassable. Yet, I commonly passed before I even started using hormones, as is, I have only been using hormones for a month, and my beard is still a fairly big issue to me, but if I shave, and deal with it, it's not a big issue. I'm also fortunate enough to have a reasonably passable body and face to begin with also. The first day I presented as female to the public, (and I was DAMNED unpassable looking back at it now... from the front) I was whistled at by a guy who had just turned the corner and had no reason to whistle at anyone but me. Simply, the luck of the draw in having low levels of sex hormones my entire life. My own Dad admitted one night (he was drunk, but that does not deny the truthfullness of his comment) to a random person in Holland that from behind, he couldn't tell if I were female or male.

Frankly, passability is a luck of the draw thing, much like beauty in normal women. Yes, you can spend lots and lots of money to become passable, but there are also persons who will never attempt to become truely passable no matter how much money they spend on surgery, because they are quite frankly socially ill-equipped to be women. To assert that passibility should be the face of transsexuality, is to deny that at one point all of us had to deal with passability, and denying a large part of or experiences that define us as women, and is an idea that should likely only be spread by those who are gifted with passability. Note, I didn't say gained, or aquired, or got, or anything like that. Passability is a gift, given by God, or genetics, or random circumstance, whatever you believe in. I would have to insist that a collage of transsexual women include a wide spectrum of passability. --Puellanivis 06:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look at what you are talking about.

As for everyone else. I would like to see what the other proposals are. I would really like to see an example. --Hfarmer 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to ask Andrea because 1) it's only polite 2) there may be copyright issues 3) because someone is famous doesn't mean they have less rights than anyone else. No, I don't see a huge amount sexual about the pics - I've seen worse. And yes, you *do* need to check the copyright of all the other images. I'd be pretty annoyed if someone used *my* picture without asking. Re. passability - fact is, not everybody passes be they a young transitioner or having had tons of surgery. Many many trans folks (mainly women, it seems) have passing problems. That's what keeps Dr. O in business.

Also, you assume that I'm trans. That's a kinda big assumption to make about anyone. Furthermore, we need to be representative, not just decide that "a passing face [be] the face of transsexualism". That's not based on reality and literally cuts out non-passing people out of the picture. Not good. Re. pictures of before and after, maybe pmail me as I may be able to help there - Alison^✍ 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well are you not a transperson ali. I got that impression from our earlier interactions regarding BBL theory and what not. If I have assumed wrong I apologise.

The article Woman is really well illustrated like you said. It does lead off with a montage like I suggested and it seems well done. So what I am suggesting is not unprecedented really. Finding GFDLd pictures of various transpeople could be hard. Finding such pictures of non-passing transpeople would be harder. I mean just how do I ask? [sarcasm]Excuse me sir uh maam can I take your pciture because I need a picture of a non passing TS.[/sarcasm] Might as well say it as rudely as that. :-( People who do not pass generally do not take many pictures of themselves. Unless they do not realize that they do not pass. Obtaining pictures of TS's who pass is just easier.

Also the general public is shallow. As I have said else where the top google hit on transsexualism #1 or #2 will be this article. We want peopel to come away with a positive idea of transsexuals. If that picture that will stick in their minds shows a bunch of vagabonds and miscreants who are just out to disturb people with their utter in ability to conform to any genders norms in any way then all TS's will suffer.

As for checkgin the copyright on all the other images I have already done that. They are all public domain pictures. Meanign they have been released for public consumption by anyone to use and repost at will. The ones I did not get from wikipedia came from myspace.com the myspace blogs of the people they are pictures of. Before you post a picture to myspace, when you sign up you agree to terms which state that pictures you post there are for public consumption and give up all copyrights. Those pictures are as public domain as "jingle bells" or E=Mc^2, and about as offensive. Trust me. --Hfarmer 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you post the collage in the article in its present form, I will not revert it, but someone else might. Andrea Parton 01:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

At most it will stimulate anyone who does not like it into offering an alternative. So I will post it.(oops I forgot to sign --Hfarmer 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

I will revert it instantly, and continue to do so. This must not stand. Rebecca 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh lord. You know you seem to be the only person who has a real huge problem with this. Why must it not stand? Ali-oops and Adrea Parton find it ok I have showed this collage to my mother and she can't see any sexual creepyness. Sheesh. You are entitled t o your opinion. So I would ask you to propose an alternative. Or are you just agianst any illustration what so ever? --Hfarmer 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. I, for one, do find it creepy, tacky, and just unnecessary. I'm under no obligation to provide an alternative - I don't care whether this article is illustrated, but I strenuously object to any of these rotten collages being used to do so. Rebecca 03:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oof. Lame or not, WP:CIVIL. You're not helping your cause when an admin swoops into the impeding edit war. --Neurophyre^(talk) 04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, spare me. I'm quite obviously describing the collage itself, and not its author. Rebecca 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Go read WP:CIVIL. --Neurophyre^(talk) 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Really I do not get the whole big huge deal of this. Like Allison pointed out the article Woman has this photo.

File:Women montage, black borders, darker Frau background.jpg

Women in different cultures have different appearences.

is this one creepy tacky and unneccsary? If so why? So far all you have offered are emotional arguments. While I am not go to tell you you are wrong to feel how you do. I am just going to reiterate that your reaction puts you in the minority on that. Such a montage/collage/(whatever you want to call it) is not unusual or un precedented. I will give you 24 hours at least to come up with a good reason that a picture should not be here. You will find that I am a very reasonable person so there is no need for any edit war. All of this should be reasoned out here on the talk page.

Regcognize that more people will want to illustrate this article than to leave it totally un-illustrated. --Hfarmer 06:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the deadlines. I'm not a big fan of the woman collage, but it least it doesn't look like it was designed by a six-year old in MS Paint. You've still yet to provide a compelling reason why this article needs a collage, or even why it needs to be illustrated at all. Rebecca 06:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha I thought so. You basically object to this article being illustrated in any form or fasion.:-| Don't deny it you just said so. Well let me try to convince you. :-) The old saying "a picture is worth 1000 words is true". People in the everyday world gather most of thier senssory input by sight. Visuals are very powerful. If we have a picture on this article that somehow sums up transsexuality it will help people to understand transsexuals. Just what that should be is up for debate and I am open for reasonable suggestions. I take it your suggestion is that the article not be illustrated at all.

I can guess why you want there not to be a picture here. Because in the minds of so many people out there transsexuals m2f are pure fetish sex objects. We would not want a scholarly article to be bait for such people. On the other hand we do not want to select imagery that is to unattractive either.

People can connect emotionally with the image we choose. The emotional response (revulsion) that someone could have to any single image of say a non passing TS would color their perception of the topic. We should want the picture to be neutral not making TS's look good or look bad. Abstract ideas of gender identity and such and such can be lost on many people. A picture would aid in comprehension in the same way a diagram in an instruction manual or book of anatomy does.

"A picture is worth 1000 words". If we add a picture or several pictures to this article they could convey more about gender identity and transsexualism than all the philosophiseing about it ever could. As I pointed out above it would allow more people to emotionally connect to what we are explaining to them.

Those are the reasons I and others feel that this article could use some pictures.

I still feel that some sort of montage needs to be the lead in picture. We have to try and illustrate that transsexualism transcends all national and cultural boundaries and is a innate part of the human condition. (Not something that can be blamed on "permissive" times or even fasion).

I would also want to add a picture like this one.| Nong Toom's transformation Someone else suggested a picture like this. This one would be perfect but I am afraid it is under some sort of copywright.

The alternative to having a collage/montage could be several indiviual pictures of TS men and women. But which ones. Why and what will the pictures we choose say about the subject at hand could all become a long messy debate.

Rebecca, I hope that I have at the very least told you why it makes sense to me to have a picture here. It is not out of some "creepy" perverse thing. I just want to convey information to people.

As for the rest of what I have said I hope interested parties whill think on that for a while.

I am imagineing a whole new layout for this article. One where each section will be illustrated with a picture from a related wikipedia article (Thus the picture is clear of copywright). I will rewrite it and post it here so you all can get a look at it. I have an exam on Monday so I have to spend most of my weekend studying and will not be working on this. Too much. --Hfarmer 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We should create a list of famous transexual

Like Martine Rothblatt, important stuff. Jedpressgrove 23:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See List of transgendered people. Rebecca 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rocky Horror Picture Show

Shouldn't RHPC be mentioned somewhere in how it's depicted in media? Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasterBunny (talk • contribs)

• I fail to see the relevance to transsexualism (apart from the reference in 'that' song! :) - Alison^✍ 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Rebecca 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Remembering what is at stake

In the United States of America this is the ramp up to election season. In all 50 states representatives are being elected and ballot initiatives proposed. Some of those races hinge on "gay rights". As in the minds of many people we are gay (read queer, not stragiht, perverts, whatever) these things will effect us. In my home state of Illinois there are laws proposed that will restirct the rights of transgender individuals even more. Where IL used to be the most transfriendly state it will become the most draconian. I am certain that laws are under consideration and ballot inititives being proposed to be put on the ballots in most states that will restrict our rights in the USA.

Don't believe me. Consider the following news stories.

Transgender Law and Policy Institute: News

[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/30/MNGH3F0HJ21.DTL Governor's gay-rights moves please no one Marriage bill vetoed, partner benefits preserved]

[http://www.glad.org/GLAD_Cases/legislative.shtml#antigay_legislation Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Legislative/Public Policy Work]

Most of these mentione "same sex couples" with sex defined with respect to one's chromosomes or genitalia. Basically they would be laws that would screw all GLBT-I and queer people in general. This article is only one tiny tiny part of that. When the issue of transsexualism comes up many people will google it. What will they find in that first or second hit (this article)? Consider all of that when you are editing this.

(For example Roe Conn a very popular radio talk show host here in Chicago and where eve WLS can be heard often will admit to googleing a topic then talking about it based on what he finds. I don't know if he has bothered to do this but I am sure he is not the only talkshow host likely to do that. Perhaps as show prep. Therefore some of what is said here would propogate through other mediums. Radio, TV and elsewhere on the internet. This is a strategically important and often overlooked website.) --Hfarmer 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is all very sad, but is completely irrelevant to this article at hand. It isn't our job to be pushing POV and trying to influence election results - it's our job to come up with a neutral article. Rebecca 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're very correct. We should attempt to establish a truth behind transsexualism, rather than push a POV agenda. If our page seems hostile to others, then it will envoke them against us, rather than lead to any reasonable discussion or argument. In respect or any law that would attempt to define sex by chromosomes, I suggest that anyone aware of the proposal of such a law forward their representative the statistics on women born with CAIS and PAIS. I think it would be enlightening for them to learn that statistically, they have at least a few women in their constituency that were born women, are accepted as women, are unequivocably in all ways female, except genetic. Then point out the trouble that the IOC had with women with AIS, and tell them bluntly, although in the nicest way possible, that genetics is one of the very very much poorer ways to establish the gender of a person. --Puellanivis 06:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're still talking about making an argumentative case. We should be just sticking to the facts. Rebecca 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* I'm not saying put that persuasive argument in the actual PAGE, I'm just telling people what to do about this situation. If YOU are upset about YOUR representative taking action to define gender/sex according to genetic information, kindly enlighten your representative about the problems that they will face in making such a distinction. That not all women are 46,XX karyotype. (Depending on how they word it, it could even exclude 47,XXX and 47,XXYs from marrying anyone ever.) I don't care about "enlightening" the wikipedia page, Wikipedia isn't the place for agumentative cases. I'm telling you to bring such an argumentative case to your LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, I emplore you to please read a comment before complaining about it. --Puellanivis 23:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussions about the article, not political activism. Rebecca 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want political activism in a subheader started directly about political issues, and a call for action against it, then delete the whole subheader. God, it's like griping at someone for mentioning the annoyance of Declination in Latin when someone says something off the cuff about Latin. I'm on topic for this subheading, if you don't like the topic, get rid of the source. --Puellanivis 02:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Woah woah I am still talkign about sticking to the facts. Presenting the facts in a neutral way is what wikipedia is all about. That said I want to make sure that the ideology of the millitantly non-passing TS's that are out there does not get overrepreseted. --Hfarmer 08:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, you don't want them represented at all, which is POV. I couldn't care less what happens here and I just don't have the mental bandwidth for WP right now, but I know POV when I see it (I'm not an unpassable transperson either, so don't make that assumption either). Your picture is unrepresentative as I've already stated and you're using WP to push your own agenda. We're not here for our own agendas, we're here to state facts in a neutral fashion and right now, your pic is not doing that - Alison^✍ 11:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First Ali you have a picture up and you look pretty nice in it. I was not talking about you personally not being passable. I know this can be a sore spot so some people react just to any percieved slight. Sorry.

What I am talking about when I say millitantly unpassable is the subset of non passing TS's who do not even try to pass. More over they do not think that they should have to pass. While at the same time expecting the same treatment as someone who does pass. Surely you have heard from such people. They usually embrace A certain word as their identity and use it as an excuse to not try.

What I am saying is that we should not overrepresent the unpassable ones. Perhaps one picture would state their case well enough. With the caption "Not all TS's end up passing as well as others, but they still ID as female just as much. Female to male transsexuals have less trouble with this issue". But who could we put as that picture? We would definately have to ask thier permission and be up front as to why. Do they want to be the posterchild of non passing transsexuals on such a public website?

There see how I compromised.  :-)

Now try and see what I am really saying here. Not just in the picture but in the words we need to convey a balanced and factual image of transsexuals. If we do that we will automatically end up rehabilitating the image of transsexuals in a very small way. The picture we pick as the lead in be it a montage or a single shot will be of great importance. It has to be a picture that is sufficiently general as to not bias any particular kind or color of TS.(I cannot say enough why I want a montage for that). Those kinds and colors should also be shown as fitting into their respective societies as invisibly as possible.--Hfarmer 14:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whether I'm passable or not is not the issue here nor is whether I'm trans or not relevant. Thank you for the complement and all but comments about me as a person are irrelevant here. I'm just another WP editor, as are you. We strive to document the facts and remain neutral. Both you and I need to leave our agendas at the door (and we all have them!). Yes, I know the type of transsexual person (usually women) that you're referring to - sure, but when you're saying "we should not overrepresent the unpassable ones", I agree. We need to provide a balanced image. And here's the truth; not all transsexuals are passable - not by a long shot. To airbrush this out of WP, as you are suggesting, is simply wrong. Because it's not representing reality and because it's based on your particular POV. I'm all for "balanced and factual" but this isn't it. Nor am I in favour of dividing transfolks into two camps a la BBL. That's just so bogus. - Alison^✍ 22:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's talking about BBL? Hell I would put a picture of Anjelica Kieltyka, or Anne lawrence in the montage. She looks more than presentable, in fact looks very good. She is an example of what the image of a TS should be. Someone who tries and eventually succeeds at blending into society totally and compleately. BBL types have nothing to do with this.

When I am writing this I am just imagineing the smart @$$ radio host I mentioned above reading from this article when the issue of Ts-ism comes up. Do we really need millions of people driving home hearing about how we ourselves chose a picture to represent us that looks like Mrs. Doubtfire? We transsexuals do not need any more of that. There are enough images of Ts's who do not pass and do not want to pass. --Hfarmer 00:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is why I could care less about the article being illustrated at all, since this inevitably leads to a bitter (and unnecessary) dispute about how to do so. Improving the article would be a better use of that time. Rebecca 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• "We ourselves" did not choose the picture - you did. Furthermore, you are repeatedly ignoring the point that I am making; WP needs to be NPOV. It is not a vehicle for your political agenda (nor mine). By all means, cut out the unpassable, but in doing so, you are being dishonest, plain and simple. You are choosing to not represent a significant portion of the trans population simply because you don't like them and don't want to be associated with them and that does not make for a factual, unencyclopedic article. Also, don't do the "we transsexuals" bit. You don't speak for everyone any more than I do. Ok - I'm about done on this now. Point made - Alison^✍ 02:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(I am writing this with great insomnia as it is 4AM here. Excuse me please if it seems to be incoherent). All I am saying is people react to pictures in a very emotional gut way. Perhaps we can take heart that someone who would read the article will have a good reaction to hearing the fact that not all transwomen pass even after all the surgery and hormones etc. However most people will react to the pictures. The image, while such a seemingly shallow and vacuous part of a condition like this is important. I personally think it is not POV to exclude a non passing TS from the lead in collage. Why Because lower down the article we can have a picture of one who does not pass. I ask again who do we choose to give that dubios distinction? I personally do not want to do anyone that way. So please make a suggestion of such a picture. --Hfarmer 08:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• (2:30am here. We both have the same problem). You're "choosing to exclude" - you've just said so yourself. That's editorial bias. Sure, put in a picture of someone less than passable, but don't put it in with the others. Instead, have it tucked away further down the page. They're embarrassing and don't convey the message you want to convey. Hello?? That's segregation. Not very nice. As to finding a pic of someone unpassable. That's easy. Just go pick one from somewhere on the 'net. Maybe someone well-known. After all, that what you did with all the other pictures! Spot the problem? - Alison^✍ 09:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Montage Take Two

Well I have more free time for at least the next month so I can figure this out. I will be taking another crack at the photo montage. I will use images taken from wikipedia articles that are either public domain or "fair use". I figure it is fair use to use a picture here under the fair use rule because I looked up the issue on the website of the US copy wright office. US copy wright office:Fair use. The first use it describes as fair use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes," This sounds to me like it is taylor made for a situation like this. I will use images from many of the same wikipedia articles I got pictures from before except ones that have been explicitly objected to already. Since these pictures have been found to be of the community standard of wikipedia I really can see no valid reason to object to them now.--Hfarmer 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• The best thing to do if you're making a collage is to do like they did with the women picture and state 1) the overall license and 2) the individual license and reference for each of the individual pictures you use. Also the final license must be appropriate to the most restrictive license of the individual pics you used. Please also read WP:FAIR and remember that WP isn't only US-oriented. Also, remember the discussion above on passability, segregation and our own political agendas! Pmail me if I can help with anything - Alison^✍ 18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I just created Talk:Transsexualism/photos as a kinda sub-project to continue discussions and edits re. images over there. It's getting majorly overloaded here :) - Alison^✍ 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will add the latest picture

if no one objects.--Hfarmer 02:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do, and will revert it instantly should it be added. Rebecca 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Rebecca what I'm going to do is insert the picture and perhaps seeing it in context will soften you.--Hfarmer 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Check this out

What the heck is with this article. Don't answer on this talk page here answer at that article. Just thought some here would have something to say about this. Men who have sex with men Says that category includes transsexuals.  :-? :-/--Hfarmer 20:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it would if they were referring to gay FtMs ... but I'm guessing they're not, right? - Alison^✍ 23:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of transsexual "men" who have sex with men needs to be clarified. Hfarmer edited the article to state that it was referring to men in a "biological and anatomical" sense, and therefore to male-to-female transgender and transsexual people. I think that Hfarmer's edits are problematic for several reasons. For one thing, post-op MTF transsexuals are anatomically female and most MTF transsexuals never considered themselves to be men. Additionally, FTM transsexuals are men and they are not addressed in the article at all. Finally, "biological sex" is an abstract concept with no single definition. Therefore, the article is definitely biased and/or unclear and needs editing. When I first saw this comment and learned that Wikipedia had an article titled "men who have sex with men," I thought it might be a good AfD candidate, but after reading the article, it seemed to have some usefulness, but it definitely needs improvement.

Andrea Parton 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well while I actually agree that MtF's are women and FtM's are men as far as my own ideal dream world would be concerned I have to live in the real world. In the real world no matter what we do there will be people, most people who will think " once a man always a man". ftm's will not even come on to most people's radar either.  :-( Plus I pointed out on the talk page of the pertinent article that if we are to disucss transsexuality we must not inclide mentions of intersex conditions. Those are a whole different story. If someone has a physical intersex condtion (excluding those not observeable at birth with the naked eye) then they are not strictly transsexual. So brining up AIS and PAIS and XXY etc. etc. is not helpful there.

It was clear from the context and the way it was worded that the meanings of every thing were colloquial. Men=anatomically and biologically normal males (one Y chromosome, intact at least semi functional penis). To most people anyone who has ever meet those criteria ever in their life is a man. I know this seems wretched but just accept it. Accept that SRS will not make you a woman and that at least 40% of people will never think of you as a woman then get on with your life. --Hfarmer 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of intersexed people is to note to people that "binary gender" is not existant in so far as they consider it. You will notice that I only mentioned intersexed conditions in the Talk page, and specifically did not directly address them in the article during my copy-edit. You'll notice that my copy-edit of the article now says that the person must be self-identifying as a male, no matter what biology, anatomy, anything that they have.

You make the same assumptions that many other people do, in attempting to fit a binary gender, and define "anatomically and biologically male" as must have one Y chromosome. There are men with two Y chromosomes, and men with NO Y chromosomes. Specifically some of those with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and such a condition could be easily induced (although unethically) by exposing an XX embryo to androgens and AMH prenatally.

All of these comments are intended to address the use of "biological male" vs. "biological female." From a biological stand-point, the only time this ever matters or makes any distinction at all, is when a conception occurs, the father/male supplied the sperm, and the mother/female supplied the ovum. From a strictly biological sense, anyone who has not supplied genetic material to conception is biologically neuter. No other term of "biological male/female" will stand up to any scrutiny at all due to a conflict of the term "biological".

As for anatomical, the word "anatomical" refers to the appearance of the genitalia. There *are* anatomically female dolls in the world, who are not even human. Should a MTF compare her existance against such an anatomic female?

My objection was not to how they were attempting to define gender, but rather to how you treated the subject, by attempting to reenforce the traditionallized views of male/female and that biologically and anatomically transsexual people are not women, because recall above, a post-op MTF has the equivalent amount of feminitity to qualify as a female in both sense of the word "biologically, and anatomically female" as an infertile woman, regardless of if she has her Müllerian ducts or not.

If the people want to enforce a traditionalized view of male/female, where once born a male, or declared legally a male, always a male, then they need to indicate as such in the article and in a way that declares exactly what they are intending to say, and not relying upon the ambiguous terms "male" and "men". The only term that satisfies this traditionalized view is "natal female" and "natal male", (which will naturally exclude intersexed people, but at least the group of people is smaller than "biological") which refers to, when you pop out of your mother's womb, whatever the doctor declares you as, that's what you are.

But without a doubt, we should not ever be seeking to enforce a notion that biologically or anatomically we are anything less than women. As far as both of those terms go, we have just as much a right to be called "women" as natal women. If I were to present a very passable MTF to those people and ask them if she were a "man who has sex with men", they would probably laugh in my face and tell me that she's a woman, and doesn't count. Traditional views of male and female are exclusively based on the perception of the individual. If they look at you and see a transsexual, then you are a transsexual, if they look at you, and see your desired gender, then they assume that you are that gender, and would be confused if you were to tell them that you were transsexual. This view is also self-reenforcing, because as you spot more "transsexuals", you assign them the label transsexual, and as you spot more women you assign them the label "women", as such, you never actually ASK them what they really are, so while your assumptions may not in truth be 100%, you still assume that you have 100% accuracy. This is the cause of a situation where my sister told me, "I can always spot a transsexual." People people assume that it's easy to tell the difference between men and women! --Puellanivis 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing about that is the "very passable mtf" scenario you mentioned has happened, several times. No matter how passable or pretty never mattered.

Honestly I am not "in favor" of the traditionalist "once a man always a man" POV but I have realized there is no point in fighting it. It will not stop me from doing what I am doing but there is no reason to think I will change the way most people in the world look at this matter. From the point of view held by most of the western world a mtf transsexual is simply a man who is living as a woman. No more, no less. That's life. --Hfarmer 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to enforce

Nor am I trying to assert that some people don't react badly once they do figure out/are told that someone is a transsexual. The point is that this is entirely their subjective response and reaction to hearing that a transsexual is not "entirely female", it has nothing to do with any truth or substantiated value to that assertion. I'd like to see someone try something, take a since natal female of some nude pictures of her, and then show them to some guys, and then suggest to the guys that she is transsexual. "Oh, look here, you can see a <make something up>, that's a typical tell about a transsexual that most people won't notice." Or something like that. Watch their reaction, even though you are aware that this female has never been a transsexual, their reaction will be just the same. As such, one's passability determines how likely they are to be blindly accepted as female, and even pass around people who would be violent, or simply just bigotted if they knew. As such, reality has nothing at all to do with whether one is regarding you as female or as a male who is pretending to be female... it's entirely their exclusive perception of you. As such, propogating that "biological female" or "anatomical female" would not contain transsexual females, but only cisgender females is absurd. This is the only thing that I am trying to argue. I don't care if you one does not want to see me as a female because I was at one time a male, as long as they don't base it on some misguided notion that I am neither biologically, or anatomically female. --Puellanivis 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias against cross-dressers

I'm rather disappointed to note that this article has a fairly subtle but distinct bias against cross-dressers.

Okay. So I did an edit where I attempted to keep it brief and succinct but reduce that bias. It was reverted within literally 3 minutes, with my edit being described as 'highly stilted and biased'.

Am I wasting my time trying to edit this again, or should I simply tag it as {{NPOV}} and add the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/to do? --AliceJMarkham 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did the revert, percisely because I thought that it was much too biased against cross-dressers. I didn't like the phrasing "many crossdressers dress too femininely because they exaggerate their ideals of what is feminine." I thought that your changes were reasonably good, but saying that they dress "too femininely" ??? Like, what is that supposed to mean? Non-tomboy females dress entirely female... a transsexual who wears dresses to work, would not be considered to be dressing "too femininely" even though they are dressed entirely female. I think the representation of drag queens is a good phrase, presenting themselves as caricatures of women. But the phrasing of crossdressers could use some work. It's good to separate them from drag queens and not present them as the same, but using phrases such as "too femininely"? I would think saying that they dress in an exaggerating feminine manner, according to their feminine ideals would be really good. Just the whole "too feminine" sounded bad against cross dressers. Don't mistake this as a biased AGAINST cross-dressers, I was trying to look out for them! That's why the revert asked you to rephrase it some. --Puellanivis 06:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I read your revert in exactly the opposite way to intended. It's hard to know what is behind reverts in an article where almost every 2nd edit appears to be a revert. Sorry all.

You're right. I used that phrase because I tried to keep part of the existing sentence, which was a mistake. I am a CD with a strong focus on passing to the point of being accused of being 'a TS in denial' by another CD. I wasn't trying to be too negative towards them but to maintain a realistic position of acknowledging that most are not passable and are more interested in dressing up to the point that they stand out because they don't dress down to match women around them. I'll have a little think about the wording. --AliceJMarkham 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to work from the version you had started, like I said, it was good, just needed some work :) And yes, things can get pretty hectic on this page, being a pretty controversial subject for some people, and thus open to vandalism.  :) --Puellanivis 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would probably be accurate and unbiased to say that "many crossdressers dress in manner consistent with stereotypical ideals of feminine behavior rather than real-life female behavior." I think that captures the idea that crossdressers sometimes dress "more girly than actual girls" without being derogatory. --JaceCady 04:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the changed context of the sentence, I've edited it to say "The difference between this group can typically be expressed most easily is that while transsexual people tend to dress conservatively and modestly, while crossdressers tend to dress in a manner consistent with stereotypical ideals of feminine behavior rather than real-life female behavior and "drag queens" or "drag kings" tend to dress in a flamboyant manner which parodies rather than emulates the opposite gender." I believe this is accurate, non-derogatory and gramatically correct. --JaceCady 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

EXCELLENT change! :) Very well worded! I doubt I could do better, thanks for making it clearer and more accurate! :) --Puellanivis 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There were a few minor grammatical errors that I think were there before you edited it, which I've now fixed. Overall I think you've done very well. :) One minor thing that probably still needs to be looked at is that the wording doesn't allow for female-to-male cross-dressers tending to stereotypical male behaviour. --AliceJMarkham 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that wording *does* exclude female-to-males...mea culpa! I'll see what I can do. --JaceCady 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's gender neutral now. --JaceCady 23:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing in the article at this time has: They argue that transsexuals are the "opposite" gender, which I kind of would like to alter. Using quotes in this manner indicates that it is "so-called" or not actually true, or should be regarded as without merit. I've changed this to "They assert that transsexuals are of that gender" This, I believe, gives it a better encyclopedic tone, more neutral, and is more objective than the original wording which gives it a very subjective feel. (If only, because it presents objectively the subjective opinion of transsexuals themselves, heh) --Puellanivis 01:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Retracted... looking at the actual article instead of the diffs, it's a double single quote (italics) rather than a single double quote... :( Sometimes I don't like the whole quotes thing to make italic and bold... --Puellanivis 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Are is italicized and opposite is double quoted because I wanted that part of the sentence to be grammatically parallel to the statements on transvestites and drag performers, while still emphasizing the fact that transsexuals are not "just" particularly extreme cross-dressers. --JaceCady 01:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User 147.160.181.8

Could someone block this guy! I spent the past hour reverting his vandalism on this page... Marrilpet 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Transsexual vs. Transgender

I've replaced the paragraphs on the transsexual versus transgender issue, as the previous version seemed to have an unclear understanding of why transsexuals sometimes object to the broader term and implies it's some kind of twisted elitism. In my experience, this is not the case. --JaceCady 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest Changes

Okay, I've done a pretty major round of cleaning up and streamlining the entire definitions section...please let me know if you disagree with any of my changes so we don't get into a revert war or something. --JaceCady 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Muslim and Christian thing is not entirely accurate. Over 4 decades ago, the Ayatollah Khomeini was discussing transsexualism. Unlike certain US states, in Iran today, it is possible for transpeople to get SRS and complete revision of their birth certificates and identification documents. Of course that is only for heterosexual transgender people. Iran still executes people for the 'crime' of homosexuality.

Yes and no. Both transsexualism and transvestism are capital crimes in Iran and virtually all other Muslim nations. Some Muslim nations allow corrective surgery for intersex conditions, based on a 1988 fatwa by Mufti Sayed Tantawi which reads (in part): "As for the condemnation of those who by word and deed resemble women, it must he confined to one who does it deliberately [tacahhada dhalika], while one who is like this out of a natural disposition must be ordered to abandon it, even if this can only be achieved step by step. Should he then not comply, but persist [in his manners], the blame shall include him, as well -- especially if he displays any pleasure in doing so. The person who is by nature a hermaphrodite [mukhannath khalqi] is not to be blamed." As you can see, this fatwa clearly forbids transsexualism, transvestism and pretty much any kind of transgender behavior; the *only* thing allowed is correction of biological intersex conditions, as these are considered natural defects and not a sinful behavior chosen by the person. --JaceCady 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they do not restrict it to people who are intersex. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 2001 ACCORD report stated that SRS occurs openly and frequently. This is not to say that these guys are choir-boys. Once you are accepted for SRS, there is no choice to be non-operative etc. And you also can't be (post-operatively) gay or lesbian. However the point is that they don't have the simplistic idea that transsexual=bad. If you want a more popular literature report on it, here is the Salon Article on it. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/28/iran_transsexuals/print.html

The fatwa permits medical intervention for someone who's intersex, but not transsexuals. This a bit of a semantic point because transsexuals can usually get SRS by convincing a sympathetic doctor that they are intersex; since the Muslim definition of being intersex is less exact than the Western medical definition, it can be interpreted to allow SRS for transsexuals based on being "mentally intersex". However, the legal and religious principle is still that men cannot become women and vice versa. The fatwa itself concludes (emphasis added): "To sum up: It is permissible to perform the operation in order to reveal what was hidden of male or female organs. Indeed, it is obligatory to do so on the grounds that it must be considered a treatment, when a trustworthy doctor advises it. It is, however, not permissible to do it at the mere wish to change sex from woman to man, or vice versa." --JaceCady 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean when you 'the fatwa'? Are you talking about the 1963 document that Khomeini wrote? That does imply the need to be a hermaphrodite. However that is neither the case now. In the 1970's a transgender woman named Molkara got access to Khomeni and he gave his official blessing to her efforts, and that decision supercedes the previous information. However, despite the aergument that either what Khomeni said in the 60's or 70's was 'right' or not, it does currently happen quite frequently for teh diagnosis of GID/transsexualism.NickGorton 04:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Both the 1963 fatwa by Khomeini and the 1988 fatwa by Tantawi (which is the one I've been quoting from) clearly state that medical treatment is allowed for intersex conditions, but *not* transsexualism. The basic idea that it's immoral perversity for a man to become a woman and vice versa, but those who have natural intersex conditions should not be blamed for their *biological* conditions and may -- indeed, must -- receive medical treatment. As a result, someone who is transsexual can get SRS if and only if s/he can convince a doctor to declare her/him mentally intersex. In other words, Islam condemns transssexuals but allows treatment for intersexuals; the "loophole" for transsexuals is that GID is considered to be an intersex condition. --JaceCady 15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that people who are transgender are getting State Sanctioned SRS... because the state has declared GID a type of IS condition. Well, good on them, I think they are probably right and that many transsexual people are subtle forms of intersex. However, the sum total is what I said.... transgender people can get SRS, and documents fully changed. A far better cry than what many Americans would be allowed.NickGorton 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The counterpoint is that people who are transgender are still officially condemned by both the state and the religion as immoral perverts; treatment for intersexualism is *mandatory* and intersexuals are still required to comply with extremely rigid gender roles. Islam doesn't tolerate dissension or variance, thus intersexuals have to be *fixed* so they comply with traditional male/female gender roles. --JaceCady 15:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The definition is also somewhat POV and not really supported (unless you have a source for the claim that 'most' transsexuals believe what you said.)

Which part of the definition? It's kind of long. --JaceCady 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This: "The former definition is considered by some -- most notably certain health care providers -- to be too vague, while the latter definition is considered both rude and inaccurate by most transsexuals because it..." (bolded the pertinent part.)

I'm transsexual, I know quite a few other transsexuals, and I've never met anyone who was transsexual who considered plumbing to be the *defining* aspect -- it's about who *you* are, not biology. That's also why the term "sex change" is frowned upon. I'll concede personal knowledge isn't a citable reference, but I'd argue I *do* know what I'm talking about. --JaceCady 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And again, regarding 'most' I am a health care provider who treats transgender people... and I know a lot of other health care providers who do the same and I have not experienced that as a common belief (that such a definition is too vague.)NickGorton 07:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That was based on existing material. I didn't want to *completely* throw out previous editors' work and replace it with my own. --JaceCady 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I did already edit it to say "certain" health care providers -- I would have said "some", but it would have sounded bad to say "some health care providers" again right after the "some people". I personally suspect the "physical based" definition is primarily supported by doctors and/or psychologists (do psychologists count as health care providers?) who don't have much contact with actual transsexuals and would prefer a neat, tidy, verifiable, medical definition of the term as a point of principle. --JaceCady 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Jace, being both a doctor, and a transgender man, and someone aho has about 300 active transgender patients in my clinic, and who works with a few (and am good friends with a few) mental health providers who focus on transpeople, my comment would be that 'it takes all kinds.' I have met transwomen who (even pre-op) who don't define themselves as 'real women' yet.... till the get the surgery. And my personal view if they are transsexuals as soon as they accept that label in a conscious way. There are certainly certain motifs that people travel on with regard to their views, but its not something you can pin down that easily.NickGorton 19:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have done well in removing the religious wording that could have been percieved as NPOV. I've done a minor edit to fix a typo (later -> latter) but otherwise, looks good to me. --AliceJMarkham 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nick Gorton, in the future please avoid using words with heavy negative connotations, such as "reviled". Also, "misunderstood" declares immediately that our POV is correct, and theirs is wrong. This is entirely POV, and should be avoided on Wikipedia. Thank you for the edits though, they are very good otherwise.  :) --Puellanivis 05:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Revile simply means to talk about in a bad way. Misunderstanding is lacking knowledge about a subject or person. You can say that Gays, or Americans, or Pat Robetrson, or Doctors who perform abortions are reviled in many parts of the world and its a simple statement of fact whether or not your agree with what is said about them or not. What people say badly about another group is POV. That people speak badly about someone or a group is merely factual information. If you would like sources, I would suggest the Why is saying that people say bad things about and do not adequately understand transsexualism POV? Much less 'incredibly POV'?

As to whether or not transsexual people are reviled in the US (since you'd think that we'd get it slightly better in the west than elsewhere, but not so much..) I would suggest starting with GLAADs info: http://www.glaad.org/action/al_archive_detail.php?id=1365&

http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=120& (don't eat before you read that one.) Though I loathe HRC for many reasons, this is reasonably accurate: http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Issues/Transgender_Issues1/Transgender_Basics/Transgender_Basics.htm NGLTF have several good documents: http://www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/library.cfm?issueID=21&pubTypeID=2

So I think it is hard to argue the fact that transsexuality is ill understood and spoken about negatively.

Also its Nick Gorton not Gorton.NickGorton 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, in the future assume good faith of your fellow editors. I was not trying to attack you, or your views, my position is that using the word "revile" contains heavy connotations. I would ask you to please consult the meaning of "connotation", it has nothing to do with definition of the term, but rather with the feelings and opinions, and imagery that people have when they hear that word. While I will not dispute with you that transsexualism is talked about in a bad way, but using the word "revile" introduces an emotional and negative aspect to this criticism. Labeling transsexualism a "taboo" is a better choice in this situation is much more ideal, as it contains no negative connotation against the people who express it. Many times, transsexualism isn't really "reviled" but rather just not talked about, or not dealt with, or ignored. By far this is the most common reaction that I have encountered myself. People don't hate me, they just have never had to deal with this before, and it can make them feel uncomfortable, or uneasy, but not "reviled".

Saying that transsexualism is "misunderstood" expresses the notion that those people who misunderstood it, by definition have incorrectly understood transsexuality. This is necessarily a POV term, as saying that something is being "misunderstood" requires a postion to be right, or correct. Seeing as how there is no sufficiently established cause of transsexuality, it cannot be argued that it is being "misunderstood". Just because a culture has a varying opinion upon something is not sufficient to claim it to be misunderstanding that thing. Leprosy however, is often misunderstood, as most people do not understand the causes the effects, and other factual and medically established information. (First, leprosy is extremely weak, and can only infect some people, it is also incredibly difficult to spread, and it can be easily treated, as long as people haven't treated it like it's religiously unclean.) Until transsexualism has established medical criteria, asserting that it is "misunderstood" would incorrectly assert that our view is the only correct view. --Puellanivis 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Seeing as how there is no sufficiently established cause of transsexuality, it cannot be argued that it is being 'misunderstood'."

Lack of complete understanding of the etiology of a condition does not imply a lack of understanding of the condition. Before we knew that type I diabetes was an auto-immune islet-itis of the pancreas, we had a pretty detailed understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of the illness. Moreover, there is some evidence that suggests etiology of transsexualism (Mikey Diamond's twin studies giving a pretty substantial heritability, the gender identity formation of children with varying forms of CAH, the link between transsexualism in male-bodied people and DES exposure, that Zhou study that is always over-hyped, but does add a piece to the puzzle.) So while we do not have a complete understanding of transsexualism, it is incorrect to state the we lack an understanding of it.

Medicine has a diagnostic model, etiologic data, epidemiologic data, multiple different treatment protocols, outcomes data for treatment, and overall a pretty good evidence base to support the medical and surgical treatment of transsexual people. Moreover, 'understanding' is not the exclusive arena of medicine. There is a complex and detailed body of literature about the transgender/transsexual experience within other disciplines as well: law, sociology, psychology, etc. So stating that we don't 'understand' transsexuality because medicine lacks a complete understanding of the etiology is far from true.

"my position is that using the word 'revile' contains heavy connotations."

I certainly agree with you that there are many shades of meaning to any word. However, I still believe that revile is the correct term - based both on the manifest and latent content of that sentence.

"Many times, transsexualism isn't really 'reviled' but rather just not talked about, or not dealt with, or ignored. By far this is the most common reaction that I have encountered myself. People don't hate me, they just have never had to deal with this before, and it can make them feel uncomfortable, or uneasy, but not 'reviled'."

I am very happy for you that this has been your experience. However, your experience in this case does not define the transsexual experience. Transpeople are hugely disproportionately vulnerable to hate crimes, homelessness, job and educational discrimination, lack of access to medical care, HIV, etc. Moreover transpeople who are at the intersection of multiple identities that expose them to violence (poor, black, disabled, HIV positive, etc) experience what can easily be described as 'revulsion' (if not worse) on a daily basis. Fortunately for me, I have an experience much like your own. I am white, educated, enfranchised, and can self-advocate. However this revulsion is related to me time after time from the transgender patients that I see at my clinic... in San Francisco - which you'd expect to be one of the most trans-positive places.

Most homeless shelters in the US (if they accept trans-people at all) house according to birth sex. Prisons almost universally house according to genitals rather than gender identity. For that matter, prisons routinely deprive trans-people of hormone treatment even if they have been prescribed this by their physician for years. Trans-women in prison experience rape as an almost uniform experience - often times at the hands of those in charge. Almost uniformly, health insurance payers in the US (and most of the west) decline payment for transpeople -despite the mounting medical evidence that such treatment is effective, indicated, and acceptably safe. This is all despite the fact that these authorities (corrections, homeless shelters, insurers) have been provided this information repeatedly over the years. Hell corrections has known for years, and after repeated demonstrations that depriving transwomen in prison hormones OFTEN results in suicidality and not infrequently has resulted in self-castration done out of desperation. This is not a knowledge deficit, this is simply frank discrimination and moreover in many ways a dehumanization of transpeople as a whole. When Tyra Hunter was abandoned on the streets of DC with survivable injuries minutes away from a level one Trauma center by an EMT who had a legal and moral duty to proved emergency care to any in need, it was not a 'lack of an intellectual understanding.' When the EMT said "This bitch ain't no girl... its a nigger, he's got a dick" and walked away to let her die that was nothing other than hatred and dehumanization. Honestly, I think revile is pretty tame considering.NickGorton 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to debate with you whether people revile transsexuals or not. My point remains and stands that "revile" is too emotionally-laden for an encyclopedia. You can cite all the evidence you want to that people revile transsexuals, but the use of that word is simply inflammatory language, that is uncalled for in an encyclopedia. While I empathize with your strong will and desire to see transsexuals treated fairly, and respectfully, the use of "revile" in this article unless as a quote that someone has said is inappropriate, and serves no purpose other than to inflame the reader, and introduce an immediate emotional bias to the article against those who refuse to accept transsexuality. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, and it would do people well to remember such. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, and it is not the place to use emotionally charged language to debate against those whose views disagree with yours.

As for being misunderstood, I am of the firm position that transsexuality in many cases is a form of intersexuality, where the brain in absence of critical cues fails to virilize, or virilize insufficiently. And of the utmost, I am of the firm position that it is the responsibility to ensure that the body aligns to the brain, rather than attempting to rework the brain or behaviors to suit the body. And I would hold the position that if one believes that transsexuality is a purely behavioral or psychological issue would be "misunderstanding" transsexuality, while such a person who does not believe that transsexuality is an intersex condition would say that I am "misunderstanding" transsexuality. While it is certainly not reasonable to insist that we have a perfectly satisfactory etiology for transsexuality in order to assert understanding of the condition, it is still unreasonable to assert that others have a misunderstanding of it. This necessarily asserts that your view is correct, and their POV is wrong. This is naturally not NPOV, and thus is unreasonble for wikipedia.

I don't want to say that you are not allowed to make these statements, nor that they are not unjustified, what I am attempting to assert is that neither of these words is appropriate for use in wikipedia. --Puellanivis 23:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"You can cite all the evidence you want to that people revile transsexuals, but the use of that word is simply inflammatory language, that is uncalled for in an encyclopedia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/July_4%2C_2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitudes_and_reactions_to_returning_soldiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Buckley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers%27_Cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Berkeley_Campus_Architecture

Well there are MANY encyclopedic articles that apparently include the word that you dislike so much. Apparently the community of editors disagrees with you - and in fact that is in an edit protected summary of a featured article: "Spamming is widely reviled, and has been the subject of legislation in a number of jurisdictions, including..."

So its OK to revile cubicle desks, Magnus Hirschfeld, radio edits, Evans Hall on the UC Berkeley campus, and Spam, but that is just too inflammatory to use to describe the systematic deadly violence and discrimination that transpeople endure world-wide? Sorry, but you just lost your argument. QED. NickGorton 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not an active contributor to any of those pages. Although, I will lay out my objections to the articles, which you cite using "revile".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/July_4%2C_2005 <-- "Spamming is widely reviled, and has been the subject of legislation in a number of jurisdictions, including the U.S. CAN-SPAM Act of 2003." Yes, it is ok to revile something that is publicly condemned and naturally comes with deep negative attitudes. Such use is neither controversial, nor inflammatory, as SPAM emails are already a deeply emotional issue to everyone.

[Racial hygiene]] <-- "After World War II, such attempts have been widely reviled as cruel and brutal, and the racialist ideology behind them as un-scientific and pseudoscience." Yes, it is ok to revile something that is publicly condemned and naturally comes with deep negative attitudes. Such use is neither controversial nor inflammatory, as racism is already a deeply emotional issue.

[Hitlers' Cross] <-- "The swastika, reviled in many parts of the world, is also an ancient Hindu symbol and displayed all over to bring luck." Yes, it is ok to revile something that is publicly condemned and naturally comes with deep negative attitues. Such use is neither controversial nor inflammatory, as Nazism is already a deeply emotional issue.

[Attitudes and reactions to returning soldiers] <-- Regarding Viet Cong Guerillas: "By Southern Vietnamese they were often reviled for being traitors who denied their country peace and prosperity in a capitalist society because they sided with the North." This is a NPOV statement accurately describing a group's POV opinion about people that they regarded as traitors. I think it appropriate to depict people as reviling traitors.

[Radio Edit] <-- "While convenient and legally necessary for radio stations, radio edits are almost universally reviled by music purists and are particularly loathsome to hip hop fans as radio edits of some hip hop songs contain so many edits they are almost unlistenable." This is clearly an exaggerated expression. And no, I don't think it's encyclopedic. Of course, a music purist would likely accurately describe their opinion of radio edits as "revile".

[Cublicle] <-- "The cubicle desk is a much reviled and often mocked piece of office furniture in large part because of the expectations it invokes but rarely fulfills." Oh come on, this is a humorous statement.

[University of California, Berkeley Campus Architecture] <-- "Evans Hall is widely reviled; a recent campus development plan lists Evans Hall as a candidate for demolition within the next fifteen years." So, a building is scheduled for destruction, because people don't like it. Is "revile" appropriate here? I would say no, although I am not an editor of that article.

As far as the article concerning people go, first I am not an active editor, and I cannot particularly speak to if their representations are ok. But let's lay this out. You want to equate Transsexualism in this article, with SPAM emails, Nazism, and Racism? *blink blink* I don't particularly see why you would want to present transsexualism in the same light as those other terms. Could you explain that to me? Are you really of the opinion that "reviling" transsexual is so universal that it is both NPOV and non-controversial? Everyone who edits this article is likely already on the verge of WP:COI, as they are likely either transsexual themselves, or are strongly associated to someone who is transsexual. As such it is greatly important for us to show extreme amounts of constraint and not turn this article into an emotional appeal to our position. Labelling transsexuality as a taboo is not inappropriate, and is neither inflammatory, nor contraversial. Please, do not revert this change back. While I understand that you have the best of intentions in mind, as this article is such a focal point of controversy, we should seek at all costs to avoid inflammatory language. --Puellanivis 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"You want to equate Transsexualism in this article, with SPAM emails, Nazism, and Racism? *blink blink* I don't particularly see why you would want to present transsexualism in the same light as those other terms."

Again, you prove my point. Its not about what 'light' you WANT transsexualism to be presented in, but it is the reality of what transsexualism is in the world. I actually looked back through your editing and see that as a pattern. You very much want this article to present a specific picture of transsexualism to the world despite the fact that it does not represent reality for the majority of trans people.

However, the reality is that transsexuals face the same kind of hatred, violence, and discrimination that is characteristic of racism. You may not have experienced a hate crime, but that does not mean that these people haven't. [1]

Your white, educated, enfranchised, affluent experience of transsexualism does not reflect the day to day experience that the majority of transsexual people experience. Read the first page of Chris Daley's testimony to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission last year [2] and you will have an idea what revulsion that transpeople who are not like you experience. Largely these sort of people do not have a voice in these kinds of forums because they simply don't have access to them. Read the Good Jobs NOW needs assessment [3], the Washington Transgender Needs Assessment Survey [4], The Vancouver Coastal Health Survey [5] or the book Transgender Rights (Currah, Juang, & Mintner, 2006) among others if you would like to have an idea what the majority of transpeople who do not have your privilege experience.

However, while your sanitized version of reality may be more pleasant for you, it does not reflect reality, nor is it appropriate to hijack an encyclopedia entry to use it to present some pleasant fiction based on your experiences. I have provided ample evidence and references to demonstrate that revile and misunderstood is in fact rather tame given the reality of most transpeople's lives. If you persist in failing to accept that this article is about the transsexual experience, not your experience or what you'd like to present transsexual to the world, then we can ask for arbitration.NickGorton 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording that you present is too emotional charged for this article, and is inappropriate for this article, do not return it. You would not describe black people as being "reviled" in some parts of the world, would you? So why do you insist that this article present the same emotionally charged opinion of transsexualism. This article is not here to suit your personal needs, nor to present the reality of life as a transsexual. It is to present a 'neutral point of view on transsexuality. If you cannot keep your edits appropriate, neutral and non-emotional, your behavior may be presented to admins for consideration.

You assume that am white, in fact, I am hispanic. Educated? Yes, I am educated, and I am still paying off my student loans. My education is a priviledge of my both hereditary and opportunity afforded by being born to reasonably well off parents. Enfranchised? I'm sorry, I missed something, who except felonys and those with extremely sub-normal IQs are not enfranchised in the United States? Affluent? Yes, certainly, I got a high enough score on my ACT to get one semester free, then my state (New Mexico) provided my education's tuition from a scholarship provided by the lottery, available to all students who have graduated from a New Mexico school, and maintain a C average. Once I lost my scholarship, my parents were so rich that they were able to lend their credit score to allow me to get a student loan in order to finish paying for school. --Puellanivis 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Nick and Puellanivis seem to be in an edit war regarding what language to use, may I suggest a compromise? The article could state "reviled and considered taboo." It is very sad, but very true, that transsexual people are hated by some segments of society. More people hate us than I would like to think, and I think 'reviled' is an appropriate term to describe this. But while I agree with Nick that most people misunderstand us, I do not think the word 'misunderstood' is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, because, like Puellanivis says, it seems somewhat POV. Additionally, I think the phrase "in many parts of the world" should be changed to "by many people." In some countries, like the United States, opinions are divided and some people are quite cool with transsexual people and others are true bigots in every meaning of the word. Yes, I know that there are some countries where 95 to 99 percent of the population subscribes to a single set of political and religious beliefs, but even in those countries, there are always a few people who disagree with the majority (many of them probably feel that they cannot freely express their opinions without facing ostracism, persecution, and possibly even murder). Andrea Parton 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking myself about how to get the wording such that both ideas could be stated correctly, and neutrally. If we are to include the world "revile", then I would like to see a very specific attributing or substantiating statement, one certainly better than, "many people." The only problem that I really see with "revile" (as the word, as known by everyone is not entirely inappropriate for this article) is that it is being used too genericly. Transsexualism is certainly reviled by many people, but we don't want to go making broad sweeping statements that "most", "many" or even "some" people revile it without classifying that better. Rather, we can let evidence speak for itself, or using a demonstrating feature, such as those that express violence against transsexuals, or seek legal action against us. Linking the word "revile" with "intolerant" in the intro would not be unreasonable, as certainly many people, who are intolerant of transsexuality may revile it.

Also, considering "misunderstood", it can be interesting to point out that even people who are tolerant of transsexuality may not fully understand the motivations, processes, and effectiveness of therapy that transsexuals are expected to undergo. Instead of making it a judgement statement of simply, "they misunderstand us", rather the expression indicates that they are unaware of important data, that indicate that treatment is often the best course of treatment, and that it is necessary and medically indicated. (I know of a political ad in Washington that denounced an opponent for approving medicare payment of sex-change operations, clearly without properly understanding the process of therapy, the importance of the operation in many conditions, and the rigerous and often unnecessary requirements expected of doctors in order to approve a sex change.) I even encountered a nurse, a person who is by nature of her profession expected to know medically relevant information, who was apparently unaware that a sex-change operation can only be done after approval from no less than two authorities, one of which need be a Ph.D.

I think it's still important regardless to keep the link to "taboo", as for instance the Katooey (sp?) in Thailand are generally tolerated and accepted within their performances, but in the real world, while going about day-to-day business, they still face similar discrimination as any other transsexual does. This sort of a "it's ok here, but not in public" would accurately describe a taboo. --Puellanivis 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Split intro?

I'm looking at the intro and thinking that inserting a heading such as 'Gender disphoria' between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs might be in order, as the intro looks a little long as is. --AliceJMarkham 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, or we could move some of it to later in the article and just shorten up the intro?NickGorton 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably a better option. I wasn't really thrilled with my idea, I just thought that it might be a quick way to shorten the intro down. --AliceJMarkham 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The BTSc note in the current intro is inaccurate. I actually read the original study and it used the BTSc because it is a structure that is sex differentiated but not differentiated on the basis of sexual orientation. The theory is not that this particular structure causes transsexuality, but that differences in these structures is evidence of SOME type of physical origin. If someone's cleaning up the intro, I'd drop this entirely as there's a separate etiology article.--kathygnome 10 December 2006

More recent edits

1) 'Disease' is not necessarily obviously derogatory, so I left it at perversion and sin which are.

2) Added information about the historical context of the split in the TG community along the lines of transsexual vs everyone else.

3) Lynn Conway's data suffers a great deal of problems. Its GIGO, but then even after the GI, she jiggers with the numbers in wholly unacceptable ways... Not the least of which is that in the article she posted on the web, she admits its 'not scientific' (despite the fact that she styles it as a scientific paper and not surprisingly it is taken by many as one - here being a case in point.) I think she said something like it was 'investigative journalism.' I would have other ways to describe it.... starting with pseudoscience: 'information that has the appearance of science but does not follow the scientific method, usually lacking peer review and repetition of observations by independent researchers'. Given that, I think using the much more reliable source would be best.NickGorton 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I was hoping someone would have some citable information; I'm just working off of personal knowledge. I did, however, take the liberty of editing out "and many other people that transgress gender norms", since it's redundant to add an "etcetera" item to the list when the sentence already notes transgender to be a broad umbrella term. I think it flows a little better that way. --JaceCady 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This highlights a broader issue with this article and related topics on Wikipedia - the lack of reliable sources, and the use of some profoundly dodgy ones. I was doing a major piece of coursework some time ago and attempted to use these pages to put me in touch with some reliable statistics, and found it basically useless. Moreover, I found things like major claims being cited to a study of ten(!) people. This article could really do with someone going over with a fine-tooth comb and citing stuff. Rebecca 03:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I'm switching majors from biology to psychology at the moment, so hopefully I'll have some citable information in the near future; at the moment, I don't have access to a good academic library since I'm also transferring between colleges. --JaceCady 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We may also wish to cite WPATH Standards of Care rev 6 referring to the Dutch stats: "The most recent prevalence information from the Netherlands for the transsexual end of the gender identity disorder spectrum is 1 in 11,900 [assigned] males and 1 in 30,400 [assigned] females." Jokestress 08:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a compleat utter and total rewrite

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Which means a short description and explaination in this case based on cited sources. The simplest defintition of a transsexual that I have seen anywhere of a transsexual is anyone wishing to be assigned to the gender opposite that of their birth socially and/or physically. That's it. Then a bit of explaination of all of that. Not more than five or six paragraphs. What would take up a page or tow. Right now this is way to long and convoluted and confusing. I would want to outline it like

transsexualism

A transsexual is a person who wants to be assigned to a gender opposite that which they were assigned at birth based on the appearance of their genitalia.

I. Introduction Transsexuals are people of both genders who wish to belong to the gender opposite that assumed due to their gential appearance at birth. .....

II female to male

IIIfemale to male.

IV summary of the above.

V links to other wikipedia articles that deal with any more specific things one wants to put in the Wikipedia record.

Simple no? What do you all think of this concept? --Hfarmer 07:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Err. That's the definition of Transgender, not Transexual. --AliceJMarkham 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What the? That is, even at the most basic glance, a fundamentally logically absurd definition ("belonging to the gender opposite"?!?!?!?). It confuses gender and sex, and comes at it from a rather bizarre angle (I don't know of any transperson whose reason for wanting to transition was "wanting to belong to" the opposite sex, rather because they "were" a gender consistent with that of the opposite sex. And even if we ignored the absurd wording of your definition and got at what I think you were trying to get at, it still flies in the face of the vast majority academic work on transsexualism in the last fifteen years. Rebecca 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what you think I am trying to get at. Oh yeah that other,controversial stuff. Well no it has nothing to do with anything I am saying here. I also did not say anything about sex in that definition. Here it is again with empahsis added.

A transsexual is a person who wants to be assigned to a gender opposite that which they were assigned at birth based on the appearance of their genitalia.

It says that we were assigned to a presumptive gender based on the appearance of our genitalia. When a baby is born does the doctor not look at the genetalia and exclaim "it's a Boy!" or "it's a Girl!" based on the genital appearance? Of course they do. Then for the rest of that kids life that proclamation is accepted. 98.75% of the time with no problem at all. Only (1/2500)1.25% of births result in a transsexual.

Now as for that being the definition of "transgender" not transsexual. As far as I know dragqueens, cross dressers, gender queers , and others do not generally want to be reassigned to the gender opposite that which they were assined at birth. They display various gender non conforming behavior but they do not want to be thought of as a member of the gender they weren't presumed to be at birth. However those people are said to be transgender. In my mind once a person has been through SRS they are no longer a member of the gender they were assigned at birth in any way shape or form and so they are no longer transsexual. For all practical everyday purposes and legal purposes they become a new male or new female. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hfarmer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Looks like you're confusing sex and gender here. I've never changed my gender. Saying 'gender' here muddies the waters where as the 's'-word (objectionable as it is in some quarters) is more accurate - Alison^✍ 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alison Happy Holidays! It is not I who am confused on that matter it is society at large. To most people sex and gender are the same thing. That is why when the doctor looks at a baby's genitalia the doctor assigns them to a gender. From that instant on the baby is swaddled in either blue or pink. Given a baseball glove or a doll. Told that wanting to dance Ballet is a good thing or a bad thing. Basically socialized into the gender identity the baby was presumed to have based on genital appearance. By contrast what I am saying or trying to say in that sentence is that transsexuals disagree with the gender they were assigned at birth. The last and least important element of that change is the change of sex effected by surgery.

Perhaps someone could propose a better one or two sentence definition of transsexual which could be used as the bulk of the introduction for this article.

I am now going to create a subpage to this one where I will start a new draft of this article. If we can ever reach any agreement on this draft then we can replace the current article with the agreed upon draft. Sound like a plan? Does to me. --Hfarmer 15:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

proposed new article

I still feel that we need to agree on appropriate visual aids to increase the comprehension of what this article is saying. --Hfarmer 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to this rewrite in the strongest terms. This takes an article that wasn't very good to begin with and makes it altogether pitiful trash. The new version is almost entirely opinion, is based on a whole bunch of ideas right out of left field, and is on top of that badly sourced. In one major example, it gives the current scientific consensus about transsexuality the same weight as the "Harry Benjamin syndrome" activist tripe, which hasn't gained any credibility outside of Wikipedia, and, on the other extreme, the discredited Bailey nonsense. This draft would take a long-standing, informative article (albeit one that needs work), based on the academic consensuses of various fields about transsexuality, and replace it with the entirely eccentric opinions of one person. There is not one single sentence in that draft that is better than anything in this article, and this whole draft needs to die. Rebecca 09:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the last comment the article has been updated. I have, and of course intended to, add references for what was in there. I have found where the information comes from. I am not sure what opinions you are refering to. That FTM's get more mileage out of hormones than MtF's? That MtF hormone treatment is much more effective if administered early in life? That many transsexual women have a hard time after transition? that most do not and are just fine in the end? None of that is really controversial now is it. Simple common knowledge to any transsexual I would say. As for the subsection wich links to other wikipedia articles on causation...This is not a place to debate things. All of these ideas are in scientific journals in some form or fasion. --24.15.18.86 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to help as is your right. As you have said the article we have now is not good. But surely you see that writing a new article would be easier than editing an existing one that is so long and convoluted as this one. --Hfarmer 12:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The content of the new draft is unchanged, and it remains just as hopeless as it ever did. This is the equivalent of a Wikinfo author article - this is transsexualism as you see it. This article, for all its flaws, represents transsexualism as science sees it, as academia sees it, as the community sees it, and as other people see it. What we need to do is fix the flaws in this article - clarify the language, improve the sources - which people have been doing to significant success before you ever showed up with this wretched draft. Rebecca 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What? This article as it is now mentions stuff about the TV show "Just shoot me" and other crap. It also goes on and on about topics covered in other wikipedia articles. It is way too long as it is and needs the kind of medicine that I have presribed. This article needs to do nothing more than give an overview of the topic and link to other articles that cover certain aspects in more details. The wikipedia already has tons of them. Like a sort of Index of transsexual related articles. If you look you will find that all of the groups you claim to represent have contributed in many places.

Rebecca, please try to work with me without the childish name calling. --Hfarmer 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not name calling - I was bluntly describing the rewrite for what it was. You're right that this article has unnecessary crap and has too detailed coverage of things that could be covered elsewhere, but your rewrite was not a substitute for this in any way, shape, or form, because was is inferior in every way. Since you've dropped your demand for that rewrite to be put live, however, I'll drop the point. Rebecca 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok perhaps not a total rewrite but pruning

Ok it seems that there is enough resistance to a total rewrite. How about we cut out things that are covered in other articles right now. Then simply place links to those other articles. For example...all of these sections of the current article... Next to the title of the section I have placed a link to the subsections which have articles which cover the topic.

4 Causes of transsexualism Etiology of transsexualism 5 Sex reassignment therapy Sex reassignment therapy 5.1 Psychological treatment 5.1.1 Diagnosing transsexualism 5.2 Requirements for sex reassignment therapy 5.3 Hormone replacement therapy 5.4 Sex reassignment surgery 6 Legal and social aspects 6.1 Coming out Transgender transition 6.2 Employment issuesLegal aspects of transsexualism 6.3 Stealth 8 Depictions of transsexualism in the mediaTransgender in film and television 9 Transsexualism in non-Western cultures List_of_transgender-related_topics#In_non-western_cultures

These are all subtopics which are covered in full fledged wikipedia articles. There is no reason what so ever that these topics needs to be rehashed here. We have the technology to put in hyperlinks so let's use them. --Hfarmer 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I still think this article ought not focus, like so many other things written or spoken about this topic, on the plight of male to female transsexuals and that a photograph or two could help to enhance people's understanding. --Hfarmer 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:Summary style. We may be able to cut down or rephrase some of this material if people think it's necessary, but cutting all of this down to links would trash the usefulness of this article, and certainly kill its chances of ever being featured. Rebecca 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. There is no reason to summarize this twice. It does not make the article look more imporessive because it is long. When I think of a summary I think of a few paragraphs at most on most topics. I mean this article is about the bare concept of transsexualism. Which is perplexing to most people who are not transsexual. Before you predecide that an Idea is garbage at least see how it will look. --Hfarmer 03:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Transsexual/Draft transsexuality Has been updated. I took the current existing article and did what I proposed to do to it. See how it looks. --Hfarmer 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive. Yet this new draft leaves out many of the most basic questions someone might want to find answers to when they look up "transsexualism". What are the causes? How is it diagnosed? How is it treated? What are the social ramifications? Do people regret transitioning? All of these are absolutely crucial questions that need to be answered in the article, but in your proposed draft, they are scrapped in favour of a brief screed covering activist pissing contests over terminology and definitions and little else. All of these questions are complicated ones, which is why most of them also have their own articles. Summary style exists because of the need to represent such topics in articles on larger ones if that larger article is to be at all comprehensive. Rebecca 04:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

HUH. I actually did not write anything new in that part of the article you call a "brief screed". I just cut out parts that are covered in other articles and placed the links to the articles that cover them.

• "What are the causes?" Etiology of transsexualism
• "How is it diagnosed?" "How is it treated?" "Do people regret transitioning?"Sex reassignment therapy

and so on. These issues are coverd quite well in those articles there is no reason for them to be covered here.

I also do not see why such things would come to the mind of the average reader of wikipedia. On average it is safe to say they will be a heterosexual who has never ever in their life questioned their own gender identity. They really only need to know a precious little bit of information. For the 1.25% of the population (1/2500 births) who are transexuals....well they probably don't need to look up such things in an encyclopedia. --Hfarmer 14:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any judgements about why someone might want to read this article, but these are obvious questions for any passing reader, and if the article is to be even remotely comprehensive, they need to be covered. This is the whole point of a summary style article - the main article is a comprehensive overview of everything, and links to subsidiary articles where they exist at the top of particular sections. Dismissing most of the important content to links at the far bottom of the article, and replacing the article with a crappy screed (I know it was there before, but highlighting it by removing everything else that was more useful is not helpful) about terminology makes this particular article profoundly useless. Rebecca 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A look at the "Transsexuals in the media"

Although many transsexual people are modest about their bodies, and are found in all walks of life and professions, transsexual women are commonly featured in pornographic works. When depicted without having undergone vaginoplasty, they are usually referred to as "shemales". While some pre-operative transwomen call themselves and others like them "shemales," the term is regarded as offensive by many transsexual people. [6]

Just a thought about the first paragraph of this subject. Although it is true that Shemales are often depicted in pornography, these people are often not "transsexuals" but instead "transgenders".
I think this informaion should not be introduced here; it belongs perhaps in the defining transsexualism section.
Additionally, I believe this definition is flawed. Many "shemales" do not wish to completely transition; often they have surgical rather than hormonal modification to produce secondary sexual characteristics, while stil maintaining functional male primary sexual characteristics. Those women who take hormones to develop female secondary sexual characteristics quickly lose the function of the male primary sexual characteristics, and are unable to work in the industry. "Shemale" more accurately describes Transgenderists, who desire to have aspects of both sexes.
Jennifer Diane Reitz's Letters Page includes an article on this subject. As she points out, there are some transsexuals who "masquerade" as shemales in the industry during transition; however the true "shemale" is infact a transgenderist rather than a transsexual.
I would appreciate if anyone could help with suggestions in how to improve this. Lwollert 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be difficult to argue that a pre-operative transsexual participating in pornography, will typically be labeled a "shemale", it may be important to note that this term is a marketting term, and such such those transsexuals, who are labeled as a "shemale" in pornographic material are likely to not fit the criteria of self-identifying shemales, where they seek to retain their masculine functionality and working anatomy, and for that reason the term "shemale" when applied to a transsexual will typically be considered offensive, since they are not shemales, but transsexuals. Thus, indicating the reason for the offense (a mislabeling), while at the same time still indicating the actual behavior of the pornographic industry in labeling transsexual women and shemales alike under the term "shemale". --Puellanivis 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had the privilage of actually talking at length to such women. Believe me they are just as transsexual as anyone. They only keep their original equipment for reasons that are financial. Many consumers of that matterial will not buy a work done by a post-op TS. Some of those ladies do get used to living as a woman and having a penis and dont have much mental distress over it. They may choose not to have the operation for a while...then end up having it anyway. A good rule of thumb is if anyone ever expresses the desire to have SRS then they are TS. --Hfarmer 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. There are people that desire to have SRS that are not TS, and there are people that are TS that do not desire SRS. It's a pretty inaccurate "rule". Rebecca 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I said.... "They may choose not to have the operation for a while...then end up having it anyway. A good rule of thumb is if anyone ever expresses the desire to have SRS then they are TS.". So therefore even if they change their mind and become non-op they are still TS. They can easily change their minds again at a latter date. Or not. As for people who want SRS but are not TS just who are you talking about. Perhaps people like gregory hemmingway? --Hfarmer 14:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of TS people who are non-op all along, and are simply not interested in surgery - it has nothing to do with whether one is or is not TS. As for people who want SRS but are not TS - there are plenty of those types around; stopping them from doing it is one of the reasons there are such strict therapy provisions in the Standards of Care. Really, this is basic stuff. Where on earth do you get your definitions from? Rebecca 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You said; A good rule of thumb is if anyone ever expresses the desire to have SRS then they are TS. I disagree strongly on a number of levels. People can be TS while being non-op, for many reasons. Conversely, there are folks like this. - Alison^✍ 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True true but there has to be some real world demarcation between people who are TS and a full time drag queen. So far as I have meet several non-op TS's. Basically every non-op TS I have ever conversed with who brought up this issue said that they wanted the op at one point and for various reasons decided to put it off indefinately. In particular one told me she would do it if a man was willing to marry her as she is. Others have said they would want to have a good stable career before doing that.

Obviously male identified people who want vagina's. Need not apply. As far as I am concerned it is a good rule. I will restate it with what I felt were the obvious qualifications: Any transgendered person who has ever expressed a desire for SRS is a transsexual. A transsexual who decides to put off surgery idefinately is non-op. Anyone who never ever ever wanted the surgery and never comes to want it is a drag queen or crossdresser. However if they change their minds and want surgery then they become transsexual.

Whatever ruel anyone wants to come up with must account for peoples tendency to change their minds. There has to be some line between being TS and TG. SRS at least the desire for it is that line. (please do not mention non TG people who want SRS they are not even germaine to the conversation.) :-|--Hfarmer 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is still "the definition according to Hfarmer" rather than "the definition according to the APA". In reality, whether one is or isn't TS has nothing to do with whether one wants surgery - the actual criteria are far more focused on how one identifies and behaves. A drag queen who decides to have surgery is still a drag queen unless they also identify in a manner consistent with the "other" sex. Rebecca 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What Rebecca said above. There are really only two definitions of TSism we need to focus on here on WP; the APA/DSM one and the WPATH one. The rest are largely POV. - Alison^✍ 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About the sex change

Hi everyone, I have to say that this article is great, i never expected so much information on this. But i want to ask something that i didn´t understand on this article. What is it necessary to do for the legal sex change? and HAppy 2007 for everyone on wikipedia, and for all the white & nerdies, jeje, i luv that song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.13.14 (talk • contribs)

• Check out Legal aspects of transsexualism - Alison^✍ 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, i read that, but there is no information for Mexico, can someone explain me please? i´d like more information, but i can´t find it.

I would suggest that you checkout the various online webforums. Such as Beginninglife.com, Genderpeace.com trueselves.com. These all have different perspectives and are good sources of information and support. To be frank I have to warn you if you are below a certain age, say 30, you will encounter some form of hostility or the other on BL. If you are above the age that is considered genX you will be excluded from trueselves. Genderpeace has allot of history and good archives. At the very least you will get in contact with another mexican who has gone through it and can help you. I hope this is useful to you. --Hfarmer 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)