Talk:Transsexual/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

the "Coming Out" Section

A noticable problem with the current page is the "Coming Out" section, which is currently empty. Although there is already a page on coming out it deals only briefly with transsexuals.

I suggest this section include:

• Coming out Process
• Stages of Coming out
  • To Health Care Proffessionals
  • To Family
  • To Friends / Socially
  • To employers / At work
• Legal steps in coming out
  • Changing name
  • Changing identity documents
  • Legal recognition

Although now that i look at my own list, it may require its own article, with references to transsexualism, Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism, and external references.

Lwollert 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

History of transsexuality

Is there any interest in making a section on the ancient and recent history of transsexuality? I.E.

• Certain ancient greecian temples where men dressed and acted exclusively as women
• Eunuch culture and transsexuality
• Berdache culture in North america
• Harry Benjamin and his contribution to the modern treatment and diagnosis of transsexuals
• the near-infamous Christine Jorgensen who brought transsexualism to popular cultre in the united states
• Renée Richards' challenge against United States Tennis Association in 1976, which helped bring about anti-discrimination rulings, and introduced transsexual women into sport
• The recent ruling, pre-Athens Olympics, by the IOC that transsexuals could compete in the olympics
• the various other legal milestones in regards to marriage, adoption, and the like.

Cheers, Lwollert 02:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal milestones may be more appropriate for the Legal aspects of transsexualism. As far as the Olympics is concerned, the full accurate history should be given that they attempted to identify gender based on genetics, and thus invalidated a number of women who are XY female (not just transsexuals). The recent ruling that changed this was that a woman would be allowed to compete in the women's competitions as long as her hormone levels were feminine, and not masculine, thus determining that "doping" by internal production of steroids in the female competitions is against the rules. This allows transsexuals essentially as a side-effect to allowing intersexed females, but it is not sufficient for a person to simply identify as transexual, they need to be physically appropriate to the competition. --Puellanivis 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; Any comments on the other suggestions, though?

Link for sport in the UK; Includes IOC regulations [1]. Interestingly, www.olympic.org doesn't have the guidelines set out there, merely an explanatory statement. Apparently it's been called the "Stockholm Consensus". And although the consideration was made in light of the review of Gender testing procedures, the consensus on transsexuals took place four years after the scrapping of the old tests [2] and is specifically in regards to transsexuals.

Cheers, Lwollert 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation dispute

There is an error in this article. In her latest interview, Renee Richards denies any regret regarding her SRS. From the Reuter's article on Feb 18 2007 (written by Belinda Goldsmith) "Richards, now 72 and without a partner, said she does not regret the sex change operation at the age of 40 -- although she might have liked to have gone through the process a bit earlier -- but she does have misgivings about her notoriety. "I made the fateful decision to go and fight the legal battle to be able to play as a woman and stay in the public eye and become this symbol," Richards, an ophthalmologist, told Reuters in an interview in her Manhattan offices. "I could have gone back to my office and just carried on with my life and the notoriety would have died down. I would have been able to resume the semblance of a normal life. I could have lived a more private life but I chose not to. "I have misgivings about that. I am nostalgic about what would have happened if I had done it the other way," said the 6-foot-2-inch tall Richards with an unmistakable air of sadness as she folds her man-sized hands in her lap." This aspect of the article should be corrected

Certainly Renee Richards is quoted in the lynn connway site as experiencing regret, and cites a newspaper article. If you read her book, Renee certainly had a lot of co-morbidities when she transitioned, including fairly severe depression.

I think if you can cite the newspaper article (a link, perhaps?) we sould definately change the article.

Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 07:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Dr. Richards has published a second book - I'll try and get my hands on it ( Richards, Renee; Ames, John (2007), No Way Renee: The Second Half of My Notorious Life (Hardcover), Simon & Schuster, ISBN 978-0743290135 )

Psychological treatment

i velive this section rarely contains information about the actuall process. It would be great to have some references from a medical aspect here. besides that, great article! 88.73.249.4 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) aep

Adding Smith vs. City of Salem to Employment issues sections

Recently, the court case of Smith vs. Salem took place in the sixth circuit court. This case used a supreme court ruling to extend the definition of sex into the realm of gender, and with it include transgender as a protected class. I think this has merit for inclusion in the employment issues section. What do you think? Link to the opinion:[3]. This is another useful document: [4] LexieM 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

it's an interesting read, and is actually already covered by Legal aspects of transsexualism. Reading the brief, it does not actually seem as if they have extended any recognition to transsexuals as their target gender, but rather that discriminating against someone for not following the stereotypes provided for their gender is inappropriate, and the document refers to Smith throughout as a "male", albeit as an identified "transsexual", and "medically diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder". Now, what this does do is create a rock and a hard place for employers (who are subject to Title VII) regarding dismissing a transsexual. The employer cannot dismiss a transsexual as their original gender for expressing themselves as their gender of identity, but it's pretty certain that they wouldn't be able to dismiss a transsexual as their gender of identity, because if they had the job before, then they were qualified for the job, and the only thing that has changed is their sex. Thus, if a employer were to attempt to dismiss them simply for assuming the new gender, they would be by definition firing someone based on their sex. So, I rather see this decision as a boon to transgendered people who are not intending on altering their legal gender, and as protection for transgendered people who are intending on changing their legal gender, but have yet to do so. In many cases though, the courts rulings on what a person's legal gender is can vary from state to state, from courthouse to courthouse and from judge to judge. --Puellanivis 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Legal aspects of transsexualism article should be liked to in the Employment Issues section as it contains much more information. But do you think we should make specific reference to Smith vs. Salem in this article because of its importance as the only decision on the US federal level that possibly offers protection? LexieM 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds certainly reasonable. Please feel free to work up a short mention of the protection that it offers us, and then either post it here, or post it into the article. You can leave it with "for more information see Legal aspects of transsexualism" or something like that. I think it would certainly be helpful information. --Puellanivis 07:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Law in Britain that were pivitol indefining transsexual right in Britain

There were two defining moments in the development of the Human Rights of British transsexual’s that are overlooked in a Wiki that is being written by Americans for the enlightenment of Americans about the United States.

A, D & G v N.W.Lancs Health Authority 1999. The litigants challenged the practice within the National Health Service of Health Authorities funding only psychotherapy but not surgery. The court ruled against N.W.Lancs Health Authority with as a consequence the state health care system must fund gender reassignment surgery. This case is now core study for students studying health law in British universities.

Gender Recognition Act (2005) that allows transsexual’s to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. This permits the recipient to apply for a new birth certificate issued in their preferred gender and dated from their birth and to marry a member of the opposite gender

Claire Eastwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.175.137 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Diagnosis

This section is unclear. If you use the medical model of diagnosis, as a minimum I would recommend giving some "gold standards" for diagnosis, with statements such as "People with HBS must have..." or "People who ... definitely do not have Harry Benjamin Syndrome" I realize that this is difficult if there is no common anatomic, genetic, or biochemical characteristics, or are there? There is an assertion that the brains of Harry Bejamin Syndrome individuals are different. Can you provide referrences to what these differences are, with PMID numbers?75.5.228.202 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

SusannaBoudrie: "The psycho-patologization of transsexualism by APA and WHO (ICD10) is unfounded. The condition is somatic, but (still) not diagnosable in live humans. Hence even their own manuals make this an auto-diagnose; not validated in itself, only validated not being another (sic!) mental disorder." SusannaBoudrie (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyagerfan5761 (talk • contribs)

SusannaBoudrie: "According to numerous researchers transsexualism is hard-wired in the brain during the development of the hypothalamus. People with Transsexualism men and women desire to become men and women in all respects, by physical alterations of their sexual gonads sexual reassignment surgery and by Hormone replacement therapy. The entire process of switching from one sex to the other is referred to as transition, and usually takes several years. This treatment resolves the transsexualism, and post-treatment we are talking about Men-born with-transsexualism [MBT] and Women-born with-Transsexualism [WBT]" SusannaBoudrie (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that transexualism is based on hypothalamus structure is very shaky at this point; it's based on three preliminary studies which looked at a very small number of male-to-female transexuals only. It's legitimate and intriguing research, but absolutely not conclusive and absolutely not "numerous researchers". --71.108.187.136 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

New report on transsexuality from American Psychological Association.

The American Psychological Association has just released the final report from it's task force on trans issues. The report is lengthy (126 pages), so adding relevant content should probably be accomplished by multiple editors. For those interested, the report is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/transgender/2008TaskForceReport.pdf. Also relevant is APA's recent passage of an anti-discrimination policy regarding trans issues, the text of which is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/transgender.pdf.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened?

Massive Massive Vandalism is what. It looks like all of the work on these articles will have to be totally redone. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All move vandalism to the article and talk page have been fixed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tipton portrait.jpg

The image Image:Tipton portrait.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved from lede per WP:Soap, amongst others

“ Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist and one of the first physicians to assist transsexuals obtain sex reassignment, quotes from a letter he received from Dr. Christian Hamburger, the physician who treated Christine Jorgensen:

These many personal letters from almost 500 deeply unhappy persons leave an overwhelming impression. One tragic existence is unfolded after another; they cry for help and understanding. It is depressing to realize how little can be done to come to their aid. One feels it a duty to appeal to the medical profession and to the responsible legislature: do your utmost to ease the existence of these people who are deprived of the possibilities of a harmonious and happy life—through no fault of their own.

”

• Comment. What exactly do we hope to be telling our readers in the lede of this article about the subject? That transsexual people are "deeply unhappy", "tragic" have "little" hope, "are deprived of the possibilities of a harmonious and happy life"? Or that we hold these outdated views to be the mainstream view? Some transsexual people are quite happy the way they were born thank you so much. If this is used to place in context the outmoded thinking of Benjamin and other then place it and describe it as such. In the lede it's WP:undue and WP:Soapboxing IMHO. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand the way so many transsexuals think. In particular those from an older generation who are white. They are stepped in a perfectly binary gender system inherited from their European heritage. Women have a vagina men have a penis. A woman cannot have a penis and a man cannot have a vagina. To them men and women are defined not by who they are but by their parts. I have had a bit of conflict over this topic on this page (see TS VS TG). You are correct. Many TS's MTF and in particular FTM have been able to find happiness in the social role of their new gender (in the binary gender system) inspite of not having had SRS. I am such a person. While I am certain I will have SRS at some point I am not like going to commit suicide if I don't get the operation. To the minds of some, who call their transsexualim "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" I am just a "homosexual transsexual Ladyboy", A extreme sissy, a faggot @$$ TG. I see myself as a two-spirited Muhannathun who's way of thinking about gender and sexuality is just different from the dominant white, western European norms. I I am not mistaken you are Latino, and judging by your chosen name you know a thing or two about a subculture that the kind of people who put that LONG quote form Benjamin there deride. You know what I mean? --Hfarmer (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just different perspectives at work. That is why they add that quote. They stress that without the operation they cannot be happy. I respect that people like that exist but they are not all transsexuals by any means at all. Even Dr. Bejmain saw that.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lord I suppose in the charge climate of WP these days that could be taken wrong. When I wrote above. "They are not all transsexuals" I of course mean their POV is not that of all transsexuals. I can just hear AJ furiously typing indignantly as I write this. Like I said ya'll californians need to take a chill pill enjoy the weather and start petioning the populace for a new ballot initiative to reverse prop 8. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very POV statement and heavy-handed quote. It doesn't seem appropriate to give it such weight. Also you assumptions that I'm in California, may or may not be able to relate to transsexuals, etc aren't terribly helpful here. I'm not sure this quote is terribly useful to this article as is. Possibly a shorter version of it. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is using Wikipedia as a Soapbox, then the people at the AMA are using a soapbox to change medical coverage of GID as well. The AMA (American Medical Association) has recently come out with guidelines explicitly marking discrimination against transgender care as being unethical and marking it as one of the most dangerous forms of refusal to care, because it damages the patient's trust in the medical community as a whole. "Should I go in to this hospital to take care of my broken arm, or are they just going to laugh at me and humiliate me?" This quote is entirely NOT a soapbox, unless it be Harry Benjamin himself posting it to the article. This is a real medical syndrome that requires care and attention, and showing it as such on Wikipedia is not soapboxing, it's basic honesty of information. --Puellanivis (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi : Remember how you snapped off because you misinterpreted my statement that your being topic banned was specious and unreasonable. I wrote that the same day that happened. As for Californians, AJ ahem Jokestress does in fact live in California. :-| I'm pretty sure she keeps an eye on what I do here.

Puellanivis:I think what Benjiboi was getting at with that deletion, with which I agree, are a couple of things. If I remember correctly that passage was in a context that stressed the centrality of SRS. Not simply treatment in general. In context what was removed looks like this. (From [5])

Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist and one of the first physicians to assist transsexuals obtain sex reassignment, quotes from a letter he received from Dr. Christian Hamburger, the physician who treated Christine Jorgensen:

These many personal letters from almost 500 deeply unhappy persons leave an overwhelming impression. One tragic existence is unfolded after another; they cry for help and understanding. It is depressing to realize how little can be done to come to their aid. One feels it a duty to appeal to the medical profession and to the responsible legislature: do your utmost to ease the existence of these people who are deprived of the possibilities of a harmonious and happy life—through no fault of their own.

This is implying that without SRS a transsexual cannot be happy. This is simply not the case. Using Benjamin as the source There are two levels on his scale where non-op transsexuals may occur. (see Benjamin scale) Furthermore the definition of GID given in the DSM does not say that a demand for SRS is a hard and fast requirement for diagnosis. Last but not least as Benjiboi said we know that their are transsexuals. Full time, living as women all the time and everywhere, not just in some sterotypical gay gehtto, who have not had surgery and will not have surgery ever. There are some who would argue that such people are not transsexuals. You can see my response to that...I was agitated. To say it briefly such people are wrong. There are at least twice as many non-op transsexuals as post-op transsexuals, they aren't all committing suicide or anything. In short, this quote not only violates WP policies, it also spreads misinformation. All to further the agenda of some transsexuals at the expense of others.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are placing this in the lede - I would have similar concerns with almost any lengthy quote in any article's lede. It should be trimmed or split and the description written a bit more neutrally to avoid the appearance of editorializing. I would suggest also that the lede just ins't the place for this quote in particular. I'm quite famialiar with issues important to transfolk and intersex people so I have no problem including this - we just need to stay NPOV and serve our readers no matter our personal take on the subject. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Expanding the lead

To conform to the standards of WP:LEAD. Could someone please do that. If I have to do it. What'll happen is someone or the other will lodge some riddiculous accusation or whatver. With a proper expanded lead section, one that does not violate any WP policy then this article would be IMO a good article. I would nominate it as such. Until then. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Result of an Automated peer review

In the past when I tried this the article was so big, or the server's so busy that this process would never end. This time it worked and generated a littany of issues with this article.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), estrogen (A) (British: oestrogen), program (A) (British: programme).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
• The script has spotted the following contractions: hasn't, Don't, Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugo Gabriele "transsexual gangster"

This is a picture [6]. The way this person is described in some sources it makes her sound like a cross dressers, not a transsexual. However looking at this picture she looks pretty far along. Heavy. But far along. The media coverage of this is so wrong. I'll bet if she looked like Gina Lola Brigida the coverage would be much more respectful. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's not up to us to decide whether the media is "wrong". I understand this objection, but per WP:RS we have to go upon what the media is saying. In terms of the notability of this story, it is quite tremendous. Only months ago a mafia foot soldier was gang raped for simply writing poetry in his cell because he was seen as gay. That an alleged capo might be a cross-dress/transsexual is quite a first. It speaks much to who Ugo Gabriele is that he was given this latitude. It also speaks to how deeply transsexuality is appearing in culture. It might not be the most respectful depiction, nor profession, but what it says in terms of cultural acceptance is pretty astounding. Whether the story belongs on cross-dresser or this article, I agree, is open to debate. But it belongs...somewhere in our sexuality articles. --David Shankbone 16:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no way this "news story" has a place in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a news site!jenuk1985 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a silly argument, as everything an encyclopedia is made up of is "news", especially when it depicts a significant "first". This is a significant first, especially considering the culture of the mafia itself (no less is macho Italy). --David Shankbone 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sources seem confused on the matter, sometimes switching between cross-dresser and transsexual in the same article. Others do not refer to them as a transsexual at all. There is no evidence that they self-identify as a transsexual.

Furthermore, even if it becomes clear that they do self-identify as a transsexual, a section about them in this article is undue weight and risks turning this article into a coatrack. If you believe this person meets notability guidelines, create an article about them. Neitherday (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To me the only real question is does this person ID as transsexual? Juding from media coverge I lean towards yes now after doing more reading. You can find insensitive media coverage of any transsexual which will call them he if MTF. So that can't be said to disprove or prove anything. Looking t the picture this person seems to have made some permanent changes. So I would have to say after thinking about it more she is transsexual.

As for notability, weight etc. Well, the news on transsexuals can't always be glowingly positive now can it? --Hfarmer (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about whether or not the news is "glowingly positive". No other person has a section dedicated to them in this article, and that is the way it should be. This article is not about transgender/transsexual individuals, it is about transsexualism. -Neitherday (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of people mentioned specifically in this article. I have no problem with not having a separate section, but mentioning this is certainly merited. --David Shankbone 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

@David Shankbone: I created an article at Ketty Gabriele and linked it at List of transgender people, but I don't think this person warrants a mention in this article. If it survives beyond a news cycle or two and it's determined Gabriele self-identifies as transsexual, maybe put it under media depictions. Jokestress (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Jokestress - isn't it "Kitty" though? --David Shankbone 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Italian press spells it "Ketty," so I used the spelling from il Giornale and others. [7][8] I did Kitty as a redirect. Jokestress (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Foy

I've just created a new article about the case of Lydia Foy, who has spent 10 years fighting the Irish legal system over her gender issues.

I was hoping that some folk who read this might find the time to look at the article, improve it, comment, etc etc.

Many thanks,

--  Chzz  ►  01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy

Undid the change from hierarchy to establishment because it's a quote and the word used by the sourse is hierarchy. Anniepoo (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

¿¿¿¿"hierarchy" or "establishment"????

ok, then if it's a quotation, it has to be in quotation marks, otherwise it's plagiarism. quotations should cite the source as a reference, not simply refer to a book or article in the bibliography. in this case, then, it would be referenced as

<.ref>Brown, Mildred L.; Chloe Ann Rounsley (1996). True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism - For Families, Friends, Coworkers, and Helping Professionals. Jossey-Bass. ISBN 978-0787967024.</ref>

but without the "." in the "<.ref> (i can't figure out how to get it to show up here otherwise.)

i have added the quotation marks and the reference. i'm not sure if the whole paragraph or only the first sentence is quoted verbatim. please correct this if needed, as i don't have the book on hand at the moment.

any other text that is quoted verbatim in the article should be similarly placed in quotation marks and referenced.

Social Norm (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Transsexuality and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

In the article about the ADA of 1990, someone added some text to what conditions are (were) specifically not covered. (Such as poor eyesight correctable with lenses...) Someone claimed that transsexuality is a condition specifically not covered. I asked by 'citation needed' tag and on the Talk page for a citation. Left it a month. Have now removed it & commented again on Talk page. If someone knows the claim to be true and has a citation for it, go for it. [I am not watching this page.] - Hordaland (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference would be http://finduslaw.com/americans_with_disabilities_act_of_1990_ada_42_u_s_code_chapter_126#3

Sec. 12211. Definitions

...

   (b) Certain conditions
     Under this chapter, the term "disability" shall not include -
       (1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism,
     voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical
     impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;

Zoe Brain (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Perspective

The end of the section 1.1 "Process" has a paragraph on the Japanese legal situation regarding Transsexualism. The "Standards of Care" described, the interaction of legal opinions, etc., are entirely unclear. While I understand the subject matter is complex, the paragraph is hopelessly confusing (what is legal and what is not, how is it legal, etc.). It needs to be clarified (or maybe removed entirely).--98.198.170.252 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Other languages and cultures"

The first two paragraphs of the Other languages and cultures section have nothing to do with "other" languages or cultures. One is about English terminology (specifically, pronoun use), and the other is historical information. Where can these paragraphs be moved to? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be moved to the section on origins. Or IMO perhaps it ought to be done away with. I mean... isn't most of that information covered elsewhere? Or perhaps we could move it to origins and edit it minimally just to emphasize that the information there is specific to western european culture? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hirschfeld bit is appropriate in the Origins section, where you put it. But the totally unreferenced paragraph on gender pronouns isn't, since it's not about the origins of the transsexual movement or transsexualism diagnoses or anything, it's about social issues--what pronouns TS individuals prefer to have used. It still needs to go somewhere else, I think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

See the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Transgender_sexuality_article. A.A.Graff (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Arif study included ?

Right in the article!

"Arif, which advises the NHS in the West Midlands about the evidence base of healthcare treatments, found that most of the medical research on gender reassignment was poorly designed, which skewed the results to suggest that sex change operations are beneficial.

Its review warns that the results of many gender reassignment studies are unsound because researchers lost track of more than half of the participants. For example, in a five-year study of 727 post-operative transsexuals published last year, 495 people dropped out for unknown reasons. Dr Hyde said the high drop out rate could reflect high levels of dissatisfaction or even suicide among post-operative transsexuals. He called for the causes of their deaths to be tracked to provide more evidence.

Dr Hyde said: "The bottom line is that although it's clear that some people do well with gender reassignment surgery, the available research does little to reassure about how many patients do badly and, if so, how badly."

You just included a bias and ridiculous statement within the article when the very researchers the poster is claiming to quote discredit that same study based on the fact the RESEARCH WAS POOR! This was not peer reviewed or backed by anyone. Well done on including second hand studys that has discredited it's own evidence. There hasn't been a study on transsexuals PERIOD! These were follow ups and were completely uncontrolled and unscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Guardian article

The in-text citations from the guardian article don't reference the study itself, and furthermore some of the quotations are taken out of context. ( The original report's finding is avilable here: http://www.arif.bham.ac.uk/requests/g/genderreass.htm#3 )

Note that the report says that the uncertainties are too large to form a conclusion, it certainly does NOT say that there is no evidence ( in contrast to the guardian article ). It also states:

"The points above, by raising significant problems in the conduct of much of the research claiming to show that gender reassignment surgery is beneficial, suggests that the true conclusion from the available research is that we genuinely cannot be certain about what its effects are. A systematic review could help reduce this uncertainty, but because of the flawed nature of the majority of the research it is likely that the only way to reduce the level of uncertainty is to undertake more research using more rigorous designs with a control group, ideally randomly assigned, and blind independent assessment of outcomes (Abramowitz SI, 1986)."

In other words, the report simply says the research on the matter is insufficient to form a conclusion. It certainly doesn't say that there has been no signs suggesting it is beneficial ( which is what the wiki article currently claims ).

Furthermore, the review itself comes with a disclaimer: " The information is only a very brief summary of that available at the time. It was primarily designed to give readers a starting point to consider research evidence in a particular area. Readers should not use the comments made in isolation and should read the literature suggested. Readers should also be aware that more appropriate evidence may have become available since the request was undertaken. ARIF does not routinely update the advice on these pages."

ALl in all, given the above discrepancies between the guardian article and the disclaimer provided in the review, I really don't think it is a good source and basing almost half the section on it is probably not justified. I would much rather see a reference to a more official statement made by an official organisation. The Guardian is a newspaper, known to be sensationalist, and I think it is fairly obvious that the current bit that is in there is probably not a very good representation of the general opinions of experts in the field. I'd say it should go. J.Ring 11:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It does sem a bit misplaced, doesn't it?

I think a more accurate description of effectiveness would be that there is insufficient evidence to state clearly that there is a benefit, however current studies show some positive outcomes and possible reduction in healthcare costs after SRS/SAS/GRS (pick your TLA of choice). Additionally, social indicators showed an increase in social function, and psychoneurotic index scores show lowered levels of anxiety. Methodologicaly, however, the studies thus far are unsuitable to giving precice estimates of benefit. (The Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development. Surgical gender reassignment for male to female transsexual people. 1998:25. Southampton: Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development [9])

Shall we replace it? (the above link is a structured review artice, so level 2 or 3 evidence)

Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above section on the Guardian article. It never should have been included. Dr Paul McHugh was the Johns Hopkins Catholic representative that collected info for the church here to discredit the gender program in the states. Simply put they went into the study with just this question, "Has your life improved?" Unqualified and without a control group the aim was to prove it did nothing and EXACTLY like the UK study these transwomen disappeared and they could find very few. That is explainable since the ones who were passible went stealth, changing their names and moving on with their lives. Also not included in this was that at the time 70% of transwomen were unemployed, under constant threat of violence (16x the regular murder rate) and horribly discriminated against. No effort was made to determine how these factors affected answers. It should be noted that based on medical evidence on Feb 2 2010 the US Tax Courts struck down the IRS rules based on McHughs studies saying it was without merit and overwhelmed by the medical evidence before the courts. That is right, sexual reassignment became tax deductible. Perhaps that should have been included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Gender Roles - Dubious

I marked this section as dubious. Not all trans women are or want to be conventionally feminine. Not all trans men are or want to be conventionally masculine. Gender roles cover a lot of ground, but in my experience, they most often refer to gender stereotypes; if the section is interpreted to refer to gender stereotypes it is false. 72.66.63.94 (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding information gathered from interviews

I want to add some information about the struggles they face with their own families when coming out (e.g. being kicked out of their homes). I gathered this information through interviews with transvestites themselves. Would it be a reliable source? I spent nearly ten hours with two transvestites all together, but I also spoke to a group of about twenty to twenty-five transvestites about this topic. How would I add this to the references section? YFortino (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

kathoey

Is there any source for the comments about kathoey? The remarks seem to me to be an oversimplification. From what I read, the idea that Thailand is a TG/TS wonderland where everyone can be what they choose to be is a bit too idealized. My understanding is that while it's a recognized and to some extent acceptable identity, it's not without some stigmatization.

Social Norm (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are right. I would recommend looking at the work of Jillana Enteen for a reputable source to cite. 75.38.141.74 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That ridiculous lede

"Transsexualism is a condition in which an individual identifies with a physical sex different from the one they were born with."

Just what on Earth does this mean? "Identifies" and "physical sex" need definition. Without that, you have no way of telling *what* is "different from the one they were born with". There is also an unexamined philosophical view in this statement that is taken axiomatically. And while it may not be technically incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition, this one does so awkwardly. There are a lot of problems with this article, and that's before you get to the content. Ugly!Ariablue (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would:

• Transsexualism refers to the phenomenon of somebody living as a sex other than that assigned at birth.

or

• Transsexualism refers to the phenomenon of somebody living in a sex other than that assigned at birth.

or

• Transsexualism refers to the phenomenon of somebody living as a sex other than that identified at birth.

or

• Transsexualism refers to the phenomenon of somebody living in a sex other than that identified at birth.

Be better?

There are exceptions (intersex), but the lead is not the place to go into that. Mish (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't your suggestions instead end with "... other than their biological one."?

That implies that the person has to actually live as whichever sex to be considered transsexual. Many would argue that you are transsexual even before changing the way you live. 75.38.141.74 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Transsexualism#Stealth

There is an issue in this section in that it says that Leslie Feinberg died because (s)he was refused treatment. Massive issue here in that Leslie is still alive! I know that a transman did die after being refused treatment but it was Leslie. Anyone know who it was? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 17:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Eads. I think the documentary about him is called Southern Comfort 75.38.141.74 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that "Regrets and Detransitions" be copied or moved

I suggest that the section "Regrets and Detransitions" be copies or moved to Sex reassignment surgery because all data currently there pertains to former patients of SRS. Is there categorical information about people who have regretted only HRT or non-intervention transition, and would this be relevant? 69.243.148.33 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Examining Transgender/Transsexuals

The term “trans-gender” was used in the following ways:

1979, Christine Jorgensen, rejects “transsexual” for the term “trans-gender” 1988, the term is used to refer to transsexual people

The term “transgender” was used in the following ways:

1974, the term is used to refer to transsexual surgery 1985, Christine Jorgensen, rejects “transsexual” for the term “transgender”

Additionally, the term “transgendered” was used in the following way:

1970, in reference to the "transsexual" in the movie “Myra Breckinridge”

Lastly, the term "transgender community" (in it's complete modern usage, inclusive of transsexuals) was in print in trans magazines in 1984

It is therefore incorrect to assert Leslie created the term as it stands today in the mid 1990s or that Price coined it since the 1970 usage pre-dates Prince's "transgenderist" term.

For copies of all relevant articles and citations: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2011/07/13/transgender-origins/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.34.255 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that, a small number of actual hermaphrodites notwithstanding, there is no difference between a transsexual and a homosexual except that the former are committed to reassigning their gender to match their sexual orientation. This is hardly an uncommon belief and one whose rationality is fairly self evident, why nothing in the article? 74.78.162.229 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you wilfully ignoring the large percentages of transwomen who are attracted to other women and transmen who are attracted to other men, or just blissfully unaware that reality could possibly deviate from your assumptions? Actually, many people - trans- and cisgendered alike - consider their sexual preferences to have little if anything to do with their gender identity or vice versa. 193.146.58.181 (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a similar opinion about this topic... so if you have references, feel free to improve the article. --Taraborn (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there is one psychologist who partially agrees with that. This is covered in the article Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. According to Dr. Blanchard transsexuals can be categorized by sexual orientation. As the WP article says "Homosexual transsexuals are motivated to become transsexuals by their extreme effeminacy, and erotic desires to couple with men." Of course it's not a simple as that sentence.

The reasons this is not mentioned are complex. The most notable being the dominance of the other part of this theory which deals with transsexuals who are not attracted to men. It is called Autogynephilia and it dominates the discussion of Dr. Blanchard's ideas. It is controversial to say the least.

The eitology of transsexualism has a article dedicated to it. So that topic need not be covered in any depth in this article at all. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The big problem with the theory that transsexed women are actually just homosexual men, is that many of them are either bisexual, or exclusively attracted to women. The latter generally identify simply as lesbian, and both groups usually see their condition as something not related to sexual orientation (hence the recent trend in some to use the term "transsexed" instead of "transsexual"), but instead as a birth defect to be corrected, similar to how intersexed conditions cause a person to have genitalia that may not match their psychological gender (or, sometimes, may not match *either* gender - intersex genitalia can be completely ambiguous, between male and female). Added to that, two separate scientific studies have shown that transsexed women, despite being born in a male body, have female brain structures, which are present BEFORE hormone treatment. The medical community is slowly leaning towards the view that this is a birth defect, and I have to say I'm on that side - if nature can create quirks like intersexed people, who have bodies inbetween male and female (and I happen to be an intersexed woman, my strong discomfort with certain aspects of my body matches what my trans friends have told me about how they feel), AND studies have shown transsexed women to have female brain structures, I can easily see nature "messing up" enough to create a person who has the brain structure of one gender in the body of the opposite sex. Of course, medical science still needs to do a lot more research on the issue to be absolutely sure, but current evidence does seem to strongly suggest that transsexed women are, neurologically and psychologically, female, and that treatment to make their bodies female also is the logical way to proceed. While yes, there are a handful of psychologists/psychiatrists who strongly believe that transsexed women are either homosexual men or men with a fetish for having a female body, their opinion is strongly disputed and seems to be a very much minority position - I'm sure you'd still find a fair few psychologists/psychiatrists who, despite majority opinion, still believe that homosexuality is a mental illness that can be cured. You may be able to cite that a few hold that opinion, but I doubt you'll be able to cite that it's a very well respected viewpoint amongst the psychiatric community (and even less respected by the trans community). Also, while I've continually talked about transsexed women, I was just using them as an example for the sake of clarity - pretty much all I've said applies (in reverse) to transsexed men - male brained people in female bodies. To be honest, more than a brief mention of these fringe views is likely to be both as pointless and as offensive as going to <ethnic minority> page, and adding something like "Many scholars such as <a few names of white-extremist racist types> believe that <ethnic minority> are prone to such negative behaviour as <outdated stereotypes and anti-ethnic-minority propaganda>, this is supported by <cite to obviously forged or flawed study by said extremists>" instead of making clear that such views are the fringe opinions of a few bigoted idiots, if they're even mentioned at all. I mean I'm sure we don't have a page about Asian people stating the views of the Australia First Party that Asians are plotting to take over Australia and oppress white people. Xmoogle (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights, but I'm not sure where your information is coming from. I'm pretty well read on this issues, and I don't think anyone has ever said that MtF's are all homosexual males; the closest is Blanchard who said that >some< MtF's are a type of homosexual male but that asexual, lesbian, and bisexual MtFs are not at all like homosexual males.

I know of a single study which showed that MtF's (sexual orientations not reported) had a single part of the brain that was shifted in the female direction, but no study that looked at people before hormones. Which studies are you referring to?

I agree that the best thing to do for many MtF's is to help them undergo transition, but that's different from saying that they are literally women trapped in men's bodies (or vice versa).

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that anyone said all were homosexual males, I said that a few (Blanchard etc) said that they were all *either* homosexual males *or* males with a fetish for the idea of having a female body. As for the study that was conducted on that one area of the brain (other areas presumably remain uninvestigated), at least one of the women they studied had never gotten as far as getting female hormones, yet still had the female brain structure. There was a second study which confirmed the findings of the first study, but I can't remember exactly how to find it. Either that, or it was the second study that had one subject who had never had hormones - I can't remember clearly on which of the two studies it was, but I do clearly remember at least one subject had never taken hormones. And yes, saying that transition is the best course of action *is* a different statement to saying that transsexed women literally are women in the wrong body, but I do say and agree with both statements, partially from a great deal of research, and partly from unciteable personal experience (for example, I'm a lesbian, although I've tried one or two straight relationships, and there is a very distinct difference between the personalities of men and women. I've dated trans women, and they have personalities/psychologies that are like any other woman. Many of my friends are trans women, and have distinctly female personalities. A couple of my friends are trans men, and they have unmistakable male personalities. Although obviously, my personal experiences are not verifiable and citeable the way Wikipedia would need them to be). Besides, what's this "Deconstructing" business? Are transsexed people made of Lego or something? Xmoogle (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The study I know about is: Zhou, J. N. et al. (1995). A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Nature, 378, 6552, 68–70.

And that study was not able to rule out hormones as being responsible for the detected differences. If there is a replication, I'd certainly enjoy knowing about it.

I never liked the word "deconstructing" either. It always sounds to me like "analysis" with an insecurity complex.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The good old tradition of using unnecessary verbosity and big words to make onesself look more intelligent... Anyway, I'm barely awake right now, but I'm pretty sure the second study was in the 2000s. Still no idea how to find it right now. It may come up in a google search for "transsexual brain differences" or something. Xmoogle (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's real funny considering of anyone writing in this section you are the most wordy Xmoogle! So far as I know Zhou's study is the only one that has been done on transsexuals brains that found the BSTC difference.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay for me then? Xmoogle (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Zhou had a second round of examinations, including the first FTM (found to have masculinized BSTC structures) as well as a woman who had a virilizing tumor (it flooded her body with androgens) and a man who had an estrogen excreting tumor. Both had gender identities consistent with birth sex. As it was found, the woman with the testosterone fell in the female group, and the man with the estrogen excreting tumor was found to fall in the male group. This second test proves that hormones alone are not sufficient to account for a change in the structure of BSTC. I'll get the reference for you if you insist that it doesn't exist. --Puellanivis (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with the BNSTc finding is that the BNSTc is also smaller in pedophiles. So the BNSTc could be related to atypical sexuality generally rather than to gender identity specifically. (For the record: This should not be misinterpreted comparing transsexualism to pedophilia.)

The reference for that is: Schiltz, K., Witzel, J., Northoff, G., Zierhut, K., Gubka, U., Fellman, H., et al. (2007). Brain pathology in pedophilic offenders: Evidence of volume reduction in the right amygdala and related diencephalic structures. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 737–746.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that interpretation, "The BNSTc could be related to atypical sexuality", is that that would make all women have "atypical sexuality". Also, transsexualism is usually not considered a sexuality, transsexed people don't "get off" on being trans. Besides, from Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus (Frank P. M. Kruijver, Jiang-Ning Zhou, Chris W. Pool, Michel A. Hofman, Louis J. G. Gooren and Dick F. Swaab) - "We determined in 42 subjects the number of somatostatin-expressing neurons in the BSTc in relation to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and past or present hormonal status. Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women (P < 0.006). The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P = 0.83). In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range. Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder." (emphasis added by me). This seems to show quite clearly that they *were* able to rule out hormone treatment as a cause for the brain difference. Xmoogle (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

From skimming the study I linked to, it's from 1999, and references the earlier 1995 Zhou study you mentioned. This is the second study I was thinking of, uses some of the same test subjects as the 1995 study, and appears to be an expansion of it. Hope this all is helpful! Xmoogle (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Something else that may be interesting - A criticism of Bailey's methods of first ignoring the brain study, and then ignoring some of it's data and twisting the rest of the data to fit his own theories. In my own personal view, a person who resorts to misinterpreting data so heavily, either through ignorance/mistake or on purpose, is not truly a scientist. There's no real credibility to his theories. Xmoogle (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another comment - from researching the pedophile study, I can't find access to the full article, but it appears to be talking about a different area of the brain. Searching for the article on google while including the term "bstc" shows up nothing at all. Could you perhaps provide a link so I can see what you're talking about? Xmoogle (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're quoting the abstract of the article, not the body of the article itself. The basis of the authors' statement was that they had a sample of people with endocrinological disorders, and in that sample, there was no association between BNSTc size and their hormonal make-up. The researchers did not actually test any transsexuals before they started hormone treatment.

The finding does not imply that biological females have atypical sexualities. The logic is easiest to understand by analogy. Men are taller than women (on average). There are also diseases or situations (such as poor nutrition in childhood) that make a person short. But, one cannot conclude that women have those diseases or have poorer childhood nutrition (on average). Rather, women are shorter for one reason, and people with the illnesses are short for another.

I'm afraid I don't have a link to the Archives of General Psychiatry that can be used outside the university; library holdings can be accessed electronically only by faculty and current students. It's one of the biggest psychiatry journals in print, so any university or medical library will have it. If you bring the reference I posted earlier, the librarians there will help you locate it. (Librarians aren't entirely obsolete just yet!) The BNSTc finding was only tangential from the point of view of the pedophilia researchers, so it was not mentioned in the abstract. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, it *is* known that one of the subjects had never been able to get hormone treatment. Just read the criticism of Bailey's method link above - that has a little more info about that particular person. They specifically wanted to check that because the 1995 study hadn't, from what I've read. Xmoogle (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think they should start working on the transexual shot like make it last longer or like if they take a shot they can be tranny for whole year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.36.46 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Transsexuals in the media - serial killers and psychopaths

I have noticed for a long time whenever a film or tv show wants to portray a really sadistic psychopathic serial killer, 90 percent of the time they will make the character transsexual/ transvestite, so I added in a very short note in the media section although there are literally hundreds more examples that could be added in. It could be worth mentioning the alleged transsexualism of Ed Gein as a source for the stereotype, if we can call it that. I should probably have written this here first, I'm not 100% sure of the sources eligibility. Anyway please tidy up the comments rather than just deleting if possible, or if you do please tell me what changes need to be made to include the section, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.131.24 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the source you give seems to be lacking mention of transsexualism in the context you use. The main example is the list of movie and TV characters. You say they are "transsexual and transvestites" but the source lists them all as cross-dressers (with one character "possibly intersexed" and one entry, The Dead Zone, not having any mention I can find anywhere). The other sentence says "cashing in on homophobia and transphobia" while your source gives a direct quote "cashing in on the homophobia market" and they don't really explain what or who that market is ^{(the confuses me because, in my personal experience the more homo/trans/bi-phobic a person is, the less likely they are to watch something that has an LGBT character even if the character is the bad guy)}. To me it seems that all content should be removed from the article on transsexualism and, if appropriate, re-entered into another article such as cross-dressing, list of transgender characters in film and television, or transphobia. Reliable sourcing is tricky; if you have spare time you may like to read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:EMBED. Thanks for contributing. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Transexual Fetishism

Why's there nothing anywhere about nontransexuals who are attracted to transexuals, actively seek transexuals, etc.--J. Daily (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh the so called "tranny chasers". To be honest I don't think a whole lot has been written about them at all. I know of some studies which look at the way HIV is transmitted among MSM's which look at the men who have sex with transsexuals. Then there are the writtings of Ray Blanchard with refer to such men as gynandromoprhphiles. Or some such. But either of those things would be controversial. They also ammount to one or two paper's. Interesting question. hope someone looks at it eventually.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I also hope someone does a study of the difference between attraction to transgendered and/or transsexed people as people and fetishism of transgenderism and/or transsexuality.193.146.58.181 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that seems a bit outside of the scope of this article. Perhaps a brief mention and a new article on the topic, with a link to it or just a link to the new article. That would be to avoid scope creep and the unnecessary complication of the main article.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Transsexual, as a noun

Can I ask what the consensus is on using the word "transsexual" as a noun? A user has created a category called "Fictional Transsexuals" and I have been challenging the user on its validity. At the moment, the user has been directed to many transgender sites, including Trans Media Watch, but is accepting no evidence to the contrary, and perhaps some others might be able to help clarify the matter. Hardylane (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with it, but then again, I am not finicky about "Terminological Correctness" a la mode PC?

I count 28 uses of the term "transsexuals" as a noun in the article at this moment… I find it hard to make a distinction between "Fictional Transsexuals" and "Fictional Masons" or "Fictional Republicans", etc., which are commonly used and not held to be an affront against the humanity of the Masons and Republicans in question? (There I go!)

I support the overall goals of organizations like Trans Media Watch and GLAAD, and appreciate that they have good intentions, but sometimes question their judgments and definitely their tendency to try to dictate usage in cases where there are reasonable grounds for differences of opinion… e.g., from Trans Media Watch Guidance for the Media - A Brief Glossary

""Transgendered" or use as a noun ("Trangenders were all writing in") are both incorrect, as is the use of to transgender as a verb (see Transition)."

They're on terribly shaky ground grammatically with the insistence (shared with GLAAD) that "transgendered" is grammatically incorrect, yet some people get prickly about it, as if it were a matter of holy principle… personally? I don't see a problem here, and likewise, I don't really understand why use as a noun is to be proscribed. -- thanks! - bonzie anne - bonze blayk (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is all rather personal preference really some prefer it some dislike it others dn't mind either way. It correct terminology in fr example male to female transsexuals.RafikiSykes (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Main Image

The article used to have this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG as the main (first) image in the article, but that has been changed to the image of Anna Grodzka. While I understand that Miss Grodzka is more significant than the unnamed trans woman in the other image which was moved further down the article, I must say that, as a trans person myself, the previous image definitely had a greater emotional impact that more adequately alludes to the internal significance and tension of transsexualism. I vote to return that image as the leading image of the article. 68.194.127.140 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support that... the photo used earlier was a wonderful shot.

I recall that there was some complaint at some point in time in Talk about the provenance of the image of the French trans woman, but I felt the objections were not compelling. -- thanks! -- bonze blayk (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections or further comment, I have reverted to image to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG, as suggested... - thanks! bonze blayk (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The article main image appears twice, so you should remove the main image on the top part of the page and replace it with the Transgender (transsexual?) community flag...and the duplicate image can stay in an another portion of the article. 05:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.21.238 (talk)

I've replaced the duplicate image of the French trans woman with an image of Polish MP Anna Grodzka, moving its location to a more appropriate section - "Legal and social aspects".

I don't believe the image of the "Transgender Pride Flag" is appropriate for inclusion in the article, since transsexuals comprise a distinct minority of those grouped under the "Transgender umbrella", and a significant minority of transsexuals object vociferously to being included within the category. - thanks - bonze blayk (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Verification - Terminology

The term was first published in an 1907 medical journal an meant cross-sexed: http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/02/10/1907-transsexual-cross-sexed/

... and again in a 1908 version of the same medical journal referring to cross-sexual (sexuality): http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/02/10/1908-trans-sexual-cross-sex/

"Trans-sexed" (a variant of transsexual)was first used in 1915 to refer to trans-gender expression: http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/02/10/1915-trans-sexed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.34.255 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

______

My proposition is that the following section from "Terminology" should be changed.

"Harry Benjamin agreed with German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld [2]that transsexuals were a form of neurological intersex. [3]Hirschfeld coined the terms the terms "Transvestite" and "Transsexual, and in 1930 supervised the first known sex reassignment surgery on Lili Elbe [4]of Denmark."

Just double-checking my facts, but AFAIK Hirschfield coined did not coin either "transvestite" or "transsexual" - The former Coined the term in German - "Die Transvestitien" (1910) in his seminal work on the issue, and was describing what is now known as Transsexuals. The term was translated into English and used to talk about Gender dysphoria as well as what we now know as Transvestic fetishism.

Harry Benjamin actually coined the term "Transsexual" in his work, (Benjamin, 1953) which culminated with "The Transsexual Phenomenon" in 1966. Gender Dysphoria as a term was not used until about the 1970s, and was used as a term to encompass a wide range of individuals with gender discomfort. (Fisk, 1974, Laub and Fisk, 1974)

"Gender Identity Disorder" Was a term created in the DSM-III in regards to transsexuals, and the categories were "GID/Childrem Transsexualism"; "GID/Adolescent and Adult, Non-transsexual type" and "GID/Not Otherwise Specified". Notably, this did not address Late-onset transsexualism, where patients may not have had symptoms as children. Interestingly, in the major revision of the DSM, DSM-III-R, It was placed in the category "Disorders Usually First Evident in Infancy, Childhood or Adolescence". The problem was that it got lost here, as well as the issue of adult onset explained above

In the DSM-IV-TR, the current version, GID is placed in the category of Sexual Disorders, with the subcategory of Gender Identity Disorders. This is perhaps distasteful to transsexual people, as it is right next to transvestitic fetishism, Pedophilia, Fetishism, Orgasmic, Arousal and Erection disorders, and other similar categories. The disorder names were changed to "Gender Identity Disorder in Children", "Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults", and "Gender Identity Disorder NOS".

Additionally, Both the DSM-III and DSM-IV differentiate based on sexual attraction. In the DM-III, the terms "Homosexual", "Heterosexual", and "Asexual" were used - with quite a bit of confusion (Pauly, 1992). Currently the terms "Attracted to males", "Attracted to Females", "Attracted to Both" and "Attracted to neither" are used in the DSM-IV-TR.

References:

• American Psychiatric Association (1980) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 3rd ed. A.P.A.: Washington D.C.
• American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 3rd ed., revised A.P.A.: Washington D.C.
• Benjamin, H. (1953). Transvestism and Transsexualism. International Journal of Sexlogy, 7, 12-14
• Benjamin, H. (1966). The Transsexual Phenomenon. Julian Press: New York
• Fisk, N (1974) Gender Dysphoria Syndrome. In D. Laub & P. Gandy (Eds.) Proceedings of the Second Interdisciplinary Symposium on Gender Dysphoria Syndrome. Ann Harbour: Edwards Brothers, 7-14
• Laub, D. and Fisk, N. (1974) A rehabilitation program for gender dysphoria syndrome by surgical sex change. Plastics and reconstructive surgery, 53, 338-403
• Pauly, I. (1992) Terminology and Classification of Gender Identity Disorders. Journal od psychology & human sexuality, volume 5, number 4, 1992

Cheers, Lwollert 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehipassiko is commenting here on the statement above that "Harry Benjamin actually coined the term "Transsexual" in his work..." in Lwollert's comment. I have moved this comment from the middle in order to prevent Talk from getting muddled up... - bonze blayk (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, he didn't. The term "transsexual" had been around for around half a century by the time Benjamin repurposed it... and even then, he used it in an umbrella sense so that a Type 5 True Transsexual didn't even need to have genital surgery. Dr. Paul Walker of the Galveston Gender Treatment Clinic was the first to re-repurpose the term to mean what we currently take to mean "transsexual" in the 1979 edition of the HBIGDA SOC V 1:

4.3.1. Principle 7. The psychiatric/psychologic recommendation for hormonal and/or surgical sex-reassignment should, in part, be based upon an evaluation of how well the patient fits the diagnostic criteria for transsexualism as listed in the DSM-III (proposed) category 302.5X to wit:l

1. Persistent sense of discomfort and inappropriateness about one’s anatomic sex.
2. Persistent wish to be rid of one’s own genitals and to live as a member of the other sex.
3. The disturbance has been continuous (not limited to periods of stress) for at least two years.
4. Absence of physical intersex or genetic abnormality.
5. The disturbance is not symptomatic of another mental disorder, such as Schizophrenia.

This definition of transsexualism is herein interpreted not to exclude persons who meet the above criteria but who other­wise may, on the basis of their past behavioral histories, be conceptualized and classified as transvestites and/or effeminate male homosexuals or masculine female homosexuals.

For more, see: http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/02/21/hbidga-wpath-soc-i/

Benjamin's Type 4 Transsexual didn't even need to take HRT.

Coinage myths tend to be just that... myths. The lexical compound existed years (in fact, since the 1850s) before it was used to mean trans issues and before the trans+sex lexical compound was used by any sexologist, an unknown writer in a community newspaper used the lexical compound to refer to non-transsexual transgender people in 1915. There was a PROCESS which led to the term meaning what it means today, but it can't be factually asserted that any one single person "coined" the trans+sex lexical compound. --Ehipassiko (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ehipassiko, would you please place your comments below those of previous comments, and just note which part of the prior comment you're responding to? Thank you! - bonzie anne

Also, my understanding of the evolution of the term "transsexual" is that the psychiatrist David Oliver Cauldwell popularized it in the 50's... personally, I don't place a lot of stress on etymology, though I strongly agree that whatever discussions there are on the origins of terminology in Wikipedia should be accurate... - thank!, bonze blayk (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does 'Harry Benjamin syndrome' redirect here?

I saw that phrase used elsewhere and came to Wikipedia to look up what it means. Wikipedia redirects it to this page, but it isn't actually mentioned here. I assume it's simply an outdated term for transsexualism? (Curiously, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome instead redirects to Harry Benjamin, but that isn't really any more enlightening, since the phrase doesn't appear there either.) Robofish (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There was once a description in this article under the heading "Alternative Terminology"… but it's been deleted! *sigh* … in a brilliant deletionist vandalism spree conducted by Joe Random IP 98.149.114.34, here's the edit just before it's deleted - bye bye Harry Benjamin Syndrome. (See: "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia any idiot with internet access and an agenda to flog can deface" if you're lacking insight into this phenomenon, Robofish - I doubt that you do, since I've seen your handle around here before?)

"Oh my…" A deeper explanation: Well, "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is an appellation for transsexualism that a bunch of what are commonly referred to as "TS Separatists" dreamed up to differentiate themselves from "others" who are not "True Transsexuals" - in their rather restrictive view of what transsexualism really is - which has absolutely nothing at all to do with those awful people who are "transgender" (thank you very much, that's what they say!) and to seek validation for themselves as really, truly, neurologically 100% female… even though that's probably not what Harry Benjamin himself thought, if you read The Transsexual Phenomenon closely?

Basically, it's an identity label - put forth as a medical diagnosis claiming transsexualism as a neurologically-based intersex condition, that, and only that - by a splinter group in the internecine wars of trans-factionalism. The "HBSers", as they are also called, are the only group within the categories of those with pronouncedly cross-gendered identities to take up with the "radfems", horrible shrieking self-proclaimed "Radical Feminists" who are inspired by the loathing of all-things-transsexual proclaimed in Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire. (This makes no sense at all, since those folks want to ban Sexual reassignment surgery completely?)

Gee, sorry if this sounds ranty, but out there in the trans-related Wide World of Blogging, there's a whole lotta ranty going on? Oddly, I sympathize deeply with the HBSers even as I judge them to be impolite, impolitic, and deeply clueless, because (dammit) so many of these transgenderfucking crossdressing autogynewhatsis folks are simply horrible people because they lack taste. (LOL) - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's fine. On looking further, I found discussion of the concept at these deletion discussions. I understand the argument that it's not notable enough to mention, in that it seems to be a pretty fringe view, but it's just a little odd to leave the redirect there if we're not going to include it. Robofish (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that those deletions were vandalism, using spurious claims of "Unsourced, POV pushing" and the like to justify them. The "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" terminology is definitely WP:FRINGE, and obviously does not merit its own article - but frankly, from my point of view it's worthy of mention since one comes across it elsewhere fairly frequently, and some explanation of what's intended would be helpful here (included on a WP:SPS "some people claim" basis).

I must have been asleep at the switch, or more likely, actually doing something related to Real World Activities that distracted me from noticing they were not valid edits - otherwise I would have reverted them, since they were clearly being driven by some ideological agenda.

It would be kind of nice to restore the material deleted from this article, which was apparently sourced and pretty extensive, but given that some joker with an IP address may come along and undo any work done under consensus at a moment's notice while raising lunatic claims of edit warring if they're reverted, I'm doubting that it's worth the effort (from my own personal perspective).

PS: Reading over the AfD discussions… it's hilarious. The hilarity of it all is unintended, and the need for counter-argument frustrating to anyone who doesn't buy into the ideology and wants to keep Wikipedia free of "party propaganda", but still!

"And I will not comment more about this. The situation of this problem of HBS Phobia that some TG people suffer from, it will be soon exposed widely on the internet, and eventually other articles will appear on Wikipedia and in other informational resources on the internet about the wide progress of this patient advocacy movement, so what you decide to do or not here will be seen in a short future as just something anecdotal in the history of this patient advocacy movemement."
— (from the 2nd HBS article AfD - usertag omitted - bonze blayk)

ROF…

thanks - bonze blayk (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Shortcomings of article in defining and elucidating transsexualism

Assuming that someone has no idea what transsexualism is, would they be able to learn what it is from this article? I don't think so.

I's love to go over the entire article sentence by sentence and explain what is wrong with each sentence that fails to communicate some concept or other, but given that the article is rather long, and I do not have as much time as I would like, I am just going to start at the beginning, and see how far I can get.

First sentence: Transsexualism describes the condition in which an individual identifies with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex, i.e. in which a person's assigned sex at birth conflicts with their psychological gender.

The sentence makes no sense in light of the fact that, overwhelmingly, what think about how someone comes to be identified as being of one sex or another, is that in most cases, the vast majority of cases, the sex of person is not a result of assignment, babies are not "assigned" a sex at birth, rather, adults look at the baby and see what sex it is, that is, they observe and describe the sex of a baby. Yes there are occasional exceptions but overwhelmingly the sex that we consider a person to be is thought to be the result of an initial description, at birth, not the result of an initial ascription. Sex "assignment" is overwhelmingly what people think happens when someone's initial described sex is not believed, and instead of considering the person to be the sex that they have been described as being, changes is labelling occur such that instead of being considered to be the sex that they have been described as being, they begin being called the sex that they have had ascribed to them, assigned to them. Without first defining "assigned" as being used in this context, the rest of the sentence fails to communicate anything to someone who does not already know what transsexualism is.

The second sentence also communicates very little, to anyone A medical diagnosis can be made if a person experiences discomfort as a result of a desire to be a member of the opposite sex,[1] or if a person experiences impaired functioning or distress as a result of that gender identification.[2]

I have a concise way of describing what is wrong with that sentence. Let's say someone felt discomfort in their back when standing with their left leg forward and their back bent over at a 30 degree angle, and they had a desire to be able to stand in that positions without discomfort. If I told you that "a medical diagnosis can be made if a person experiences discomfort as a result of a desire to be able to stand with their left leg forward and their back bent over at a 30 degree angle" would you think that I had communicated anything to you that wasn't terribly obvious? We have not been told anything about why their back hurts, or why it hurts when they are in the position described. All we are told is that if we go to a doctor, she can come up with a diagnosis. Doesn't say what the diagnosis is. Doesn't say how the diagnosis is determined. Just that a diagnosis can be made. We all know that that is what doctors do whenever someone comes to them complaining with some sort of discomfort. This sentence might be appropriate for an article on what doctors do, but it tells us nothing about transsexualism.

After reading those sentences, if I didn't know what transsexualism is, I still wouldn't know. I'd just know that doctors make diagnoses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sex assignment is the generally recognized term for the process by which humans are assigned a sex at birth. Sex reassignment is a common term for people whose assigned sex is changed. Your concern about the first sentence would be better resolved at sex assignment. There are a number of diagnoses associated with gender identity and expression, but these are controversial and described in detail further down in the article. Jokestress (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Condition" etc.

Since this page cannot be edited, I was hoping that we could indicate that citation is needed regarding whether or not transsexualism is a condition. The debate is still ripe and hot just like the fight over homosexuality in the 70's. Homosexuality was also once considered a mental condition and was removed from the DSM and was not present in the DSM-III-R (the revision, published in 1987). I think it is inappropriate to call it a condition, life choice, or life style. I think it is best said as, "Transsexualism is when one identifies with a physical sex different from the one with which they were born.

Also, while transsexualism is stigmatized in many parts of the world, it is also accepted and even embraced in others (Thailand is a good example). Transsexualism remains controversial mostly in the United States. I do not feel this article's introduction gives a healthy global perspective on transsexualism. To add, I do not like the term "so-called" used to describe two-spirits. This implies that their belief is invalid, and thus gives the article's introduction an inappropriate tone.

Thank you, and please take these notes into consideration.

--Ectopedia (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the term "so-called" because it is biased. The DSM-IV defines transsexualism as a mental disorder, so I will cite the DSM-IV. Jenever Spirit (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The opinions of the transgender community are at least as important as the opinions of the psychiatric community.193.146.58.181 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

no, they really aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.80.81 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not the same as TG

All true-TSs, by definition want SRS and to correct their social role. Failing that, you are a transgender man who pretends he is a "TS" or a "woman," not an actual TS. TSs get surgery, TGs don't. MtF TSs are women, MtF TGs are MEN. Please do not confuse TSs with TGs nor any other type of LGBT. --75.177.39.22 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Transgenderism is what is described in the introduction to this article as transsexualism - ie, your gender identity not matching your assigned-at-birth sex. This includes transsexuals, who are transgendered people who have taken (or plan to take) medical steps to alter their biological sex in the direction of bringing it into line with their gender identity. http://www.tsroadmap.com/start/tgterms.html It is entirely correct to refer to transgender people in their chosen gender, and in fact it's wrong in most contexts (biological/anatomical contexts among the obvious potential exceptions) to refer to them in the gender they have rejected, regardless of whether they aspire to make physical alterations, which may for example be due to a fear of surgery or an inability to make commitments. 193.146.58.181 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

However, all transsexual women were supposed to have vaginae, while TG "women" are suposed to have their penises. TSism is inborn, but TG is a lifestyle choice.74.124.177.165 (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, although what you say is probably true to your experience it's not to all. There is plenty of room in all the definitions for some variations. Many in the trans community also purposefully avoid labels. If you have a verifiable reliable source that asserts your POV perhaps posting it here so others can be swayed would be helpful. Benjiboi 12:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is true for ALL true-TSs. The ones for whom it is not true is a type of forever non-op known as a TG. TSs are born with the need to correct their bodies and identify as Mainstream. There is a separate TS Community (getting or have surgery and identify as non-LGBT) aned TG (mostly gender-variant men who live as women, maintaining their penises for life). A true-TS as the term is now reclaimed to mean is a subset of the Mainstream Community, while a TG is a type of LGBT. You either need surgery (TS) or you have never needede nor desired it (TG). You are either a woman with a birth defect and the need to correct it (TS) or a man in drag (TG). The TS Mainstream Movement is not concerned with labels either. Either you were born with the need for surgery and are in the community, or you are not. TSs all just want to be seen as Mainstream, apart from the TG men who have a rightful place in the LGBT Community.74.124.177.165 (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's far from that black-and-white. Being transgendered isn't necessarily a "fetish," nor would most transwomen appreciate being called "men"... they're very much imprecise umbrella terms, that both refer to a spectrum of diverse gender identities with similar though slightly different connotations. krimpet✽ 11:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding two comments. Some people like to assert linguistic hegemony and assert that they have the one true definition of particular words. But other people will use them as we choose whether we like it or not. So rather than trying to give the "true" definitions, we should describe how the words are used, perhaps mentioning significant variation in usage where appropriate. In the real world, people will need to be explicit about how they are using the words, and readers or listeners shouldn't assume a particular usage without asking for clarification. Social Norm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

SusannaBoudrie: Transgenderism differs from transsexualism in that the former is an urge to be "trans" and not to become men and women. For People with Transgenderism, including transvestism and different kinds of queerism, it is sufficient to take on the social role (gender) of the opposite sex." The inclusion of transsexualism under transgenderism is considered abusive and cissexual colonizing by most people with transsexualism or those with a born with transsexualism. SusannaBoudrie (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Wiki’s contributors are predominantly Americans this page doesn't reflect the cultural differences between American trans community and the British trans community. For many reasons Transgender is the generally accepted broad brush description used in the United States to be inclusive of everything from GID sufferers to Drag Queens, In Britain it the phrase Transgender is more akin to an insult because it implies rejection of your gender identity being neither one not the other. In Britain the term transsexual is appropriate because it defines who is seeking gender reassignment, common enough due to free health care, and are protected by the law against employment discrimination and hate crimes these are transsexual. And those men who simply cross dress as a hobby and don’t want surgery or change their name or will devoice and apply for a new birth certificate as per the UK’s Gender Recognition Act. These guys are transvestites and in the UK the two are quite distinct groups. -- Claire Eastwood: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.175.137 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Ameri-wikipedians are predominant but disagree that the articles should remain geopolitically faulty or that issues cannot be properly addressed benefiting all concerned. Personally I prefer Intersex to Trans community but also accept that any terminology and labels are problematic so I focus on removing barriers and doing my part to promote understanding. I suggest you see what in this section could be improved. You may also find though that even within British transvestite and transsexual communities are folks who feel their experiences and voices are not being addressed and that experience will be shared until there is simply no discrimination for any gender and sexuality minorities. Benjiboi 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As an Australian, I note that the usage that you're referring to as American is the usage common to almost every transgendered person I've had contact with around the world, including some in the UK. Perhaps there is local variation within the UK, but the use of the term transgender to refer to the entire spectrum of gender variant people including drag artists, crossdressers (the clinical term transvestite is technically equivalent but now much less used) and transexuals appears to be well established in the majority of the world. If there is indeed a local variation, find a reliable source for that information and add it where it's relevant. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I must take issue with "All true transsexuals want SRS". What a bunch of bull. Suppose I stated that all true transexuals were flamboyantly homosexual when living as males. Or, gasp, I were to say that transsexuals who are "obsessed" with having the female anatomy were less transsexual. I would be pilloried!

SRS is a modern and recent surgical invention. Many a psychologist from Benjamin forward have argued that transsexualism has been found across cultures and throughout history. BEFORE their was modern surgery. Those transsexual women of antiquity made do with what they could do. Modern transsexual women who choose to not have the surgery carry on in that tradition. To say otherwise is to degrade the long and broad history of transsexualism in the human animal.

Issue 2 the use of the word transsegender. The use of that word is in the process of changing and evolving. I have heard it used as it should be. Which is an an umbrella term for all who are gender non-conforming. I have also heard it used by some transsexuals who preach of HBS to describe transsexuals who don't meet their standards.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So those who wish to conform fully to the Mainstream, non-LGBT community and get surgery should have a right to call themselves TSs. All the others are gender-variant, not conformists like the TSs, and are a type of LGBT member and should only call themselves TGs. The TS-only Community got rights for itself until 2000 when the TGs and LGBTs hijacked them with opposite strategies than what works for those born with TSism.74.124.177.165 (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

---

I agree with you, Hfarmer. Speaking on behalf of transmen, many do not get "SRS," and are no less real transsexuals than those who do. That term itself has problems. "Sex reassignment surgery," as it is currently understood, refers specifically to genital surgery, thus making the assumption that sex is defined entirely by the gentials. This ignors all the other aspects of sex differentiation in our species, including endocrine profile and secondary sex characteristics. I regard sex reassignment as a combination of surgeries and hormone treatment rather than a single surgical operation.

Any insistence that, in order to be a true transsexual one must desire a specific procedure, is damaging to the entire trans community. The danger exists that some people may feel coerced into having genital surgery that they don't really want, or that otherwise isn't right for them. The consequences of that could be enormous. It really is a bad attitude to espouse.

Of course, that leaves open the debate about where the line is drawn between transsexuals and other transgender types. As much as I hate catagories, we do need them in order to discuss trans issues, and more importantly, for legal purposes.-- Wolfgang E. B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgang E. B. (talk • contribs) 02:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no danger as TSs are a part of the TS & Mainstream Community, not the Trans Community. TSs share the same community as the Mainstream people, just like TGs share theirs with homosexuals. The TGs need to be honest that they are not TSs. Their dishonesty is what drives TGs to get TS-only surgery. When TGs can be honest that they don't have the same inborn condition that TSs have and need to correct, but are honest enough to admit publicly to being men who choose to crossdress and cross-live, then there will be no risk of unwanted surgery. Therapy should place a priority to get TGs to admit they are not TSs but men who choose to live as women. Really, if a person doesn't want to get surgery and live fully as if they were never trans, maybe they should not choose to crossdress or crosslive in th first place. Women's clothes are for women, and all women are supposed to have vaginae. The TG men in drag have a male gender identity, despite a feminine social role, and that male core drives them to keep and use their penises and take advantage of the male power associated with such. A TS woman never had any male power nor wanted it. But most TGs live as what they are not to get power they are not entitled to. Under the law, ALL who get SRS for the right reasons should be eligible to get their records sealed and be issued new birth records with the old dates and no computer copies. As for non-op TGs, maybe they should get TG records.74.124.177.165 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as a really problematic POV. It's fine to declare that there is a difference between someone who identifies as female and has surgery to make their body align with their identity, and someone who identifies similarly but does not want surgery. What is messed up, is declaring that the latter is a man in drag. Having different terminology is fine, but it is not okay to invalidate people and their experiences. I know a lot of trans women who want surgery, and many who do not. Even with a difference like this, they have a tremendous amount in common. Most importantly, they all identify as women entirely, and live accordingly. Declaring that a trans woman who does not want surgery is really a man "pretending" to be a woman, when such a great emphasis is placed on not judging a person or assigning them a gender based on their hormones or genitalia at birth, is completely nonsensical. P.gandal (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Article titles for transgendered people

This discussion may be of interest to readers of this talk page. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That is here now. Mateussf (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sex & gender confusion.

It is incorrect to define transsexuals as "ones who feel that they belong to other gender", because transsexualism is about body, and then gender (depending on case). Transsexualism differs from other transgender exactly because of that, desire to belong to other sex, not gender. Transsexuals often despise their own bodies, and there are transsexual people who don't care about gender at all. No wonder many transsexuals are actually rebelling against this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.110.209 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

IP, you mean what the lead (introduction) currently states? It's going by what WP:Reliable sources state, though that first source (the ICD-10 source) is currently a WP:Dead link and needs to be fixed. Also keep in mind, that like the article shows, some sources define transsexualism differently than other sources, so there is the WP:Neutral policy to keep in mind. What wording would you propose for the first and second sentences, and what WP:Reliable sources do you have to support you in that wording change? Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bangkok Post article fails verification

I tried to see if a URL could be added for this edit and failed to find the article on the Bangkok Post page. Since I was able to find the other recently cited article without problems, I wonder if this content appeared only in the printed edition, or if something else has gone wrong. It would be good if an established editor with access to the BP can confirm that this textbook scandal was, in fact, reported there. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Transsexualism no longer defined as a disorder in DSM-V

This is a groundbreaking change and must be included in this article. I could not see any mention of this in the previous comment. Apologies if it actually was mentioned and I missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korhanerel (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Korhanere! You are quite right. Please be bold and write about it - using a good, secondary sources. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just added a sentence with a link to the DSM-V fact sheet on gender dysphoria, since it looked like no one else had addressed this change yet. Funcrunch (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I reverted you on these changes (the top ones) you made. Like my WP:Edit summary states, see the recent discussions at Talk:Gender identity disorder about this matter, especially the article move discussions. But to sum up, the DSM-5, which is significantly criticized by the medical community, does not change everything with regard to this "disorder or not a disorder" topic. And it's in the DSM-5 book as a diagnosable condition, regardless of the name change. I'm not sure what Lova Falk has to state about the matter now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note - I will read the referenced talk page (which looks like it will take awhile!). I'm just glad to get the second part of my edit in there, as I saw no other mention in this article of the terminology change in the DSM-5 (whether or not the diagnosis is functionally different than GID). Funcrunch (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You were better informed than I was, Flyer22! Lova Falk talk 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The DSM V has been warped by political correctness and should not be followed. The correct book to follow is the DSM IV.

"Transsexualism no longer defined as a disorder in DSM-V". That is wrong, cause even in the DSM-IV there had been no "transsexualism" inside. What the APA said, that "gender identity disorder" should not called a psychiatric disorder anymore. Instead you should use "gender dysphoria" or "gender incongruence". But that hasn't to do with being transsexual, cause Transsexualiy meant something other: Being born with body-parts that differ from the birth sex. That's not a gender-related thing. Thanks. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Transsexual. Origin of the word

"Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex". This is wrong. The origin of the word (early 20th century) meant with "transsexual" body-parts that do not "fit" to the birth-sex or gender-expectations of the society (you can find that in texts about Parsifal for e.g.). A transsexual girl for e.g. is a girl who is born with masculinized body-parts. It would be good to check that and rework the article, so that the worldview from "gender dysphoria"-lobbyists (the world had been invented from Norman Fisk 1974) isn't being reproduced in an encyclopaedia. Thanks. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources please EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[10] (1904) "Parsifal und Klingsor: das Transsexuelle und das Sexuelle im Mann, auf 2 Personen verteilt." Transl.: "Parsifal and Klingsor: the transsexual and the sexual in men, diversified onto two persons". [11] (1920) "Nur das Sexuelle, nie das Asexuelle, Transsexuelle im Manne wirkt als solches auf die Frau, und nicht Schönheit, sondern volles sexuelles Begehren verlangt sie von ihm.". Translation: "only the sexual, not the asexual, transsexual in a man has an impact on women, and she doesn't demand the beauty but only full sexual desire from him". The author speaks of "in", so it is not based on society but on parts of a person in itself. It's sex, not gender. Sex and Gender are two different things. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition

The definition of: "Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex, i.e. in which a person's assigned sex at birth conflicts with their psychological gender." is cumbersome and inaccurate. Is it not more correct to say instead: "Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender other than their actual sex, and lives to a greater or lesser degree as if they are of the other gender". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs)

No. See assigned sex. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Propose changing name of page from Transsexualism to Transsexual.

"Transsexualism" as a descriptor for transsexual people is a word that's historically been used in older versions of the DSM, and by sexologists and radical feminists. It's often used in works that are critical of transsexual people.

I noted in editing the page on Sheila Jeffreys, a radical feminist Australian academic with hateful views on transsexual people, that an editor defending Jeffreys was very quick to change my use of transsexuality to "transsexualism". This got me looking at the use of the word.

"Transsexualism" has been dropped from the DSM in favour of less problematic language. The GLAAD media style manual states of "Transgenderism":

This is not a term commonly used by transgender people. This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to "a condition." Refer to being transgender instead, or refer to the transgender community. You can also refer to the movement for transgender equality.

Just as "transgenderism" is used in a dehumanising way, "transsexualism" is also used to dehumanise transsexual people and to reduce transsexuality to a theory, ignoring growing consensus that transsexuality is an innate part of human gender identity.

Note that Wikipedia has no page called "Lesbianism", nor "Homosexualism".

Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since I am the editor you mention without naming, I have to say that none of my edits were concerned with "defending Jeffreys". I am not going to get into a discussion of her views, but suffice it to say they are not mine. As I made repeatedly clear, it's perfectly acceptable to mention criticism of Jeffreys in the article; it's just that this has to be done in an appropriate way. As far as the title of this article is concerned, I think personally that it is fine the way it is. "Transsexualism" is a widely used term, and not at all the equivalent of "Homosexualism" (an eccentric, seldom-employed expression). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Transsexualism is a very rarely used word in comparison to transsexual. Google trends shows that "transsexual" dominates both "transsexualism" and "transsexuality in all categories. Even when constrained to the books and literature, reference, and law and government categories, transsexual is the only one to get significant hits.

The really interesting trend for me comes from graphing "transsexualism" and "TERF" together.. I'd call that a strong correlation. For those who aren't aware, "TERF" is an acronym for "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist". Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Probably best to start a WP:RM. I agree that "transsexualism" is no longer the WP:COMMONNAME and the page should be moved. We need to avoid WP:NEOLOGISM, but I think "Transsexual" would be best. But this page is about the medical diagnosis so we need to see that it's called in that context. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Disease", DSM, and ICD

VS6507 added a disease infobox to the page, restoring the content originally added by an IP editor on Feb 10. in this edit. At the very least this is a contentious edit and should be discussed.

Should we include the {{infobox disease}} for this since there is an ICD code for it? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The use of {{infobox disease}} is unnecessarily contentious. Having the IDC codes in the body would be useful, but the use of infobox:disease in the lede is undue. Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the contentiousness. I note ICD 11 beta has dropped transsexualism altogether in favour of gender incongruence. DSM hasn't listed transsexuality since rev 4.Chocolate vittles (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Transsexualism → Transsexual – "transsexualism" doesn't conform to WP:COMMONNAME and breaks WP:POVTITLE. Please see discussion above. Chocolate vittles (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – I don't understand the problem. And WP:NOUN suggests that the noun form is better than the adjective form. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as per considering the person, not the "condition". Trannsexualism I believe used to have very negative connotations. Most references are made by the description "transsexual". Dicklyon, in regard to WP:NOUN please see results of searches on "she's a transsexual" and "he's a transsexual". GregKaye 12:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, transexual can also be a noun; some of my friends are transsexuals. But the article appears to be about the condition. A complete rewrite would be needed to make it about the trans persons themselves. It looks to me like that would be a good idea; but a move will not accomplish it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the nub of the issue is that there is ongoing debate as to whether transsexuality is a condition (subject to cure) or a natural variation of human existence, as with corresponding issues around sexuality. By using the term "transsexualism", wikipedia is giving weight to one side of the argument, hence WP:POVTITLE. I note the DSM has backed away from listing transsexuality per se as a diagnosis for just this reason, and are now instead listing gender dysphoria. Chocolate vittles (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Unless we're going to have a page on cissexualism, it makes sense to use the word transsexual. Funcrunch (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason that we don't have homosexualism or transgenderist. Trankuility (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment In the interest of pointing out what might be most consistent, we have articles on homosexuality and heterosexuality, emphasis on -ity. Samsara 17:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If such a suffix were commonly used for this topic, I'd gladly use it for the page title. But it's not. :-/ EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Transsexuality" abides by WP:POVTITLE, which is certainly an improvement. Not nearly as common as "transsexual" though. I'd support either. 130.116.96.49 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: With this edit, Chocolate vittles changed the lead wording as though the article has already been moved to Transsexual. Since it looks like the article will be moved to Transsexual, the lead change is not a problem. But I do want to point out that the word transsexualism should not be completely removed from the article, since sources, especially the medical sources, specifically use that wording. Regarding what was stated in the #Propose changing name of page from Transsexualism to Transsexual. section above and this one, the word transsexualism is not on the same offensive level as faggot, nigger or homosexualism. And as noted, homosexualism is not a common term anyway. And while our Lesbian article is not titled Lesbianism, lesbianism is hardly an offensive term and the Lesbian article uses it. Many transgender people, including transsexual people, do not have a problem with the term transsexualism, so I view moving the title to Transsexual as much a POV move as keeping it titled Transsexualism is to others. I refrain from voting on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of my editing you referenced was in fact updating the section on the DSM to reflect that the APA has abandoned use of the term "transsexualism" as unnecessarily pathologising and stigmatising, and that the WHO is well on the way to doing the same with the upcoming ICD-11. If there was indeed a wikipedia article called transsexual, where we could talk about transsexual people as people and not a disease, I'd be a whole lot less strident. This isn't as pressing an issue for the gay and lesbian communities now as it has been historically, as the war against the pathologisation of gay sexuality has largely been faught and won.Chocolate vittles (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Where does the DSM state anything about the term transsexualism being "unnecessarily pathologising and stigmatising"? If it states that, you would have mentioned it already. The DSM change is regarding the diagnosis. This is the source currently used for that material in the article, and it is about the term gender identity disorder vs. the term gender dysphoria. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The DSM itself makes no such claim, as it makes no attempt to explain itself. Before the publication of each edition of the DSM, however, there is debate on what the language should be. Transsexualism was dropped between DSM-3 and DSM-4. That was more than 20 years ago, so details of the working groups etc are not well represented on the web. I did find this which talks about the change from transsexualism to gender identity disorder. Of note: "Between the publication of DSM-III and DSM-IV, the term "transgendered" began to be used in various ways. Some employ it to refer to those with unusual gender identities in a value free manner-that is, without a connotation of psychopathology. Some professionals informally use the term to refer to any person with any type of gender problem."

Of course since then there has been a very strong push to further destigmatise the language, with gender identity disorder from DSM 4 being dropped in favour of gender dysphoria in DSM 5. The reasoning for this is that the APA saw that there was no utility in classifying transsexual people as disordered once they'd completed transition.

The only reason ICD-10 still uses transsexualism is that it's now fully 25 years old. The language has moved quite a way in the last quarter century, alongside acceptance of transsexual people and the consensus in the medical community that transsexuality is a natural variation of human gender identity rather than a disorder or disease.Chocolate vittles (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:Reliable sources in the "Propose changing name of page from Transsexualism to Transsexual." section, or this section, supporting the notion that the term transsexualism is significantly offensive to transgender people; that's my main point. And to state that the "only reason ICD-10 still uses transsexualism is that it's now fully 25 years old" is an opinion. Either way, I've stated my thoughts on this matter, and I still refrain from voting on the article title. Flyer22 (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Merger Proposal with Transgender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: Not merged. -sche (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

---

I think they should be merged! Note: I'm the person who add the request--88.104.141.99 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Two distinct ideas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• [ WP:Edit conflict ]... Comment: As seen on this talk page and at Talk:Transgender, people commonly consider "transsexual" a branch of "transgender," and/or distinguish the two. Sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably, but transgender is the broader term. Transgender is also an umbrella term regarding other identities. Both "transsexual" and "transgender" are WP:Notable enough and distinguished enough to be their own Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. Funcrunch (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Transgender refers to people who transgress gender norms. Transsexual people seek to live and be accepted as members of their sex of identity. Note that many transsexual people see themselves as largely cisgendered, because they do not transgress gender norms after transition. Chocolate vittles (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per EvergreenFir and Flyer22. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Two different concepts. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons above. BronxGirl6 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - given the consensus here, anyone want to consider the lumping-together in Category:Transgender and transsexual women and Category:Transgender and transsexual men? - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, what are you proposing regarding those categories? Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Presumably that they be un-lumped, i.e. split into separate categories for "transgender" and "transsexual". But inasmuch as transsexual is generally considered either a subset of transgender or interchangeable with it, a lot of people would end up being double-categorized (either intentionally, or by users uninitiated into whatever idiosyncratic method of picking one category over the other might be devised), and I don't think a split would be either necessary, worthwhile, or wise. -sche (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Very much agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also agreed. Funcrunch (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, probably too complicated to sort; just wanted some input on it. There will be mistakes either way, but it's probably easiest and simpler to just leave it as-is. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one to find lists of trans people creepy? It's stalking behaviour. I'd advocate for deletion, at least until there's corresponding lists of cisgender and cissexual people.Chocolate vittles (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not creepy to me, and it is technically not a list (well, I suppose it is, but anyway). The reason we don't have categories of cisgender/cissexual people is for the same reason that we don't have Category:Heterosexual women or Category:Heterosexual men but we do have Category:Lesbians, Category:Gay men, Category:Bisexual women and Category:Bisexual men, and similar. It is for the same reason that we don't have Category:Heterosexual people or Category:Heterosexuals but we do have Category:LGBT people. And that reason is because, due to the fact that heterosexuality is the norm/usual, a person being heterosexual usually is not newsworthy; it's also due to the fact that cisgender/cissexual and heterosexual categories would be too big to be manageable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To add on to what I stated: People are presumed to be cisgender/cisexual and heterosexual unless they state otherwise. Heterosexual people usually don't go on the record to state that they are heterosexual, just like people usually don't go on record about their gender identity. Therefore, having categories about cisgender/cisexual and heterosexual people would largely be based on assumption, which is a WP:BLPCAT violation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A good number of the people in these lists didn't choose to out themselves. For example Rachael Padman, who was outed by Germaine Greer in a particularly vicious and transphobic attack. The gutter press picked up on it, so it could be argued as newsworthy, but still plenty creepy. What are Wikipedias standards in issues like this?Chocolate vittles (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No Wikipedia standards for that, as far as I'm aware, other than what the WP:BLP policy states about handling information about living people. You could ask at that policy's talk page. Our WP:Outing policy is about Wikipedia editors. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that the first paragraph of our WP:Outing policy currently includes the following line: "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." But that is about someone outing another person on Wikipedia. It doesn't pertain to reporting what WP:Reliable sources have reported (in other words, a person who was already outed by WP:Reliable sources). Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Whilst I understand the logic ("transsexual" is often considered under the "transgender" umbrella term), I feel like there are enough distinctions to warrant two separate articles on the subject. Also worth noting that there are separate Wikipedia articles for Homosexuality, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexuality, Queer etc. instead of all being in the LGBT article. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It's simply different enough to get different articles. Jort93 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated above, the two articles, while similar in some ways, are not similar enough to be merged into one. Transsexual and transgender are different, transsexual being acting differently from the gender (ex. female acting only slightly male) while trasgender refers to acting not at all like the assigned gender. Thunderbolt Hawk (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not the same thing, and merging them only confuses the point more. Gender and sex are fully separate, and that is the whole point of the concept in the first place. TheWizardsApprentice (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The articles are kept separate due to notability and the confusion between the two terms due to common confusion about sex and gender being two separate things. To merge the articles would compound this issue and create even more confusion and an unnecessarily long article. A 'see also' link may be appropriate but certainly not a merge.

I think the consensus on this merge is an oppose, yes? I will take down the banner within 48 hours, unless anyone disagrees?

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for a see also link for "transgender" since this article already addresses/links to the transgender topic, and with good reason. WP:See also is for links not already found in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What about WP:HAT? "[B]ecause the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names" is a reason for having a hat note, and I think the general public would possibly be confused about the two terms. That was the only reason that I had in mind.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that a WP:Hat is needed in this case, since the transgender aspect is seen from the table of contents...and the table contents is high up there right underneath the lead (WP:Lead). It would be better to develop the lead so that it addresses the topic of transgender. But if others agree with you adding a WP:Hat, or don't mind you adding one, feel free. I don't think that the "Not to be confused with" WP:Hat should be added, though, since these terms are sometimes used interchangeably by scholarly sources or by some LGBT members who don't adhere to the distinction between the two terms. But a part of the article does currently state that they are not synonymous; so if we are going to go with that, essentially stating it in the WP:Hatnote is not too different. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Transgender is much more broader than transsexual. The transgender label can include those who identify as male but don't desire to physically transition to a "male" body. It also includes genderqueer identities. That is my understanding of it at least but since so many people disagree with what the label means, I don't call myself transgender often.
• Also, a lot of people who identify as transsexual don't identify with the transgender label. Andrea Carter (at your service | my evil deads) 00:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been a month since this RM was opened (and three days since Dr Crazy noted that the tags in the articles could be removed), and it seems that except for the nominator there is unanimous opinion that the articles should not be merged. -sche (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding a WP:HAT to Transgender and vice versa

Would people particularly object or support the introduction of a hatnote to Transgender and vice versa from Transsexual? Perhaps the "See also" or "Further information" template, though I am open to suggestions. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Moved my post down.

Dr Crazy 102, regarding this, perhaps go ahead and add the "Not to be confused with" tag. But, regarding this, such a tag is not needed on the Transgender article. As noted above, "transsexual" is part of the transgender umbrella. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

And either way, the "See also" and "Further information" hatnotes being added to either article for these terms is completely redundant since these terms/topics are linked/addressed in both articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've put up a "distinguish" template for the moment. If anyone feels that is not the right template, let us know and see if you can find a better template. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that this is the correct template. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to assume there is silent consensus here then, until further notice. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

-sche, regarding this, I clearly know what you mean. But that See also tag is silly, in my opinion, per what I stated above. At least the "Not to be confused with" tag makes sense, given the #Merger Proposal with Transgender discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And, again, a part of the article already states that they are not synonymous. So stating it with the hatnote as well is a problem, how? As we know, while these terms are commonly used interchangeably for whatever reason, they are distinguished enough. A person being transgender obviously doesn't mean that the person is transsexual. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

See also adds weight to the argument that transsexual and transgender is synonymous, which is very POV. A distinguish hat note is also POV, but at least follows the consensus that we got to with the proposal to merge. I'd much rather remove the hat note altogether than have a see also.Chocolate vittles (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The distinguish template was replaced with the see-also template, but I will revert back to the distinguish then if that is the more-consensus-based approach. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I object to the use of "distinguish" for the reasons I stated. It appears we have no consensus for including any hatnote, and a general feeling that it's best (or at least better) to have no hatnote — the links throughout the article (prominent in the "transgender topics" box near the lead) ought to be suffcient, as Flyer pointed out in the past. -sche (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said to Chocolate vittles on on their talk page, there are only 2 links out of a total of around 65 mentions of the word "transexual*" (I used Ctrl+F, so may be less). So your "links throughout the article" statement seems a bit POV without facts, unless I have missed links? Then feel free to let me know if there are actually more links. Until then, there are not "links throughout the article", there are 2 links, hence my addition of the hatnote. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A lead is supposed to be a summary of an article, and "Relation to transgender identities" is such an important (definitional) part of this article that it has its own thus-headered section, so I think it is necessary and appropriate to work 1-2 sentences summarizing the relation(s) of transsexual to transgender into the lead, which would have the side effect of making a link to transgender very prominent. Perhaps we should start a new section on this talk page to discuss what those sentences should say. -sche (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and so long as there is a sentence in the lead explaining this then I disagree with the hatnote being used.

As of now, I've added this sentence to the article. If anyone objects to this wording, please tell me. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I object. Asserting that transsexual people are a member of a transgender umbrella is POV. Many people see transgender and transsexual as different things, not one as a subset of the other. a significant number of transsexual people live cisgender lives after transition, and don't appreciate bing lumped in with gender diverse people. By all means spell out the complexity of the relationship and non-relationship between transsexual and transgender, but simply making an assertion in the lede that transsexual is a subset is not the way to do it.

Neither is asserting that transsexual is an identity. Again, there is no consensus that it is. While many people do identify as transsexual, many others see it as a condition rather than an identity.Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What do the sources say about "transsexualism"^{(not the best word but you know what I mean)} being either an identity and/or as being part of the transgender umbrella term? We should be using the sources to settle this argument of POV of separate identity vs. sub-identity of transgender.

As I said earlier at the proposal merger, my reasoning for the hatnote was, and still is, that "because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names" and they are commonly confused by the general public. Have a nice day, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate vittles, this addition by Zumoarirodoka is not a WP:POV violation. Keep in mind that Wikipedia defines POV differently than the general public does, and that Zumoarirodoka did not add the text in a definitive way; he used the word "considered." That transsexual is an aspect of being transgender is well-documented in the literature on the topic of transgender, which is why it's noted as being under the transgender umbrella in the Transgender article. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. If I must, I certainly will pull out various WP:Reliable sources to support the case that "transsexual is a part of the transgender umbrella." That some transsexual people don't identify as being a part of that umbrella can also be noted...with WP:Reliable sources. And both the Transgender and Transsexual articles already address disputes with the terminology. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why the addition to the lede is necessary, except to push one side of the transsexual = transgender argument. There's already a quite meaty section in the article on the relationship between transsexual and transgender, where both sides of the argument are put. There are strong disputes with the terminology. That is self evident. We shouldn't be advocating one side or the other, so the section on terminology is appropriate, but not the lede, except for perhaps a note to the reader that the relationship is controversial. Chocolate vittles (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." The relation of transsexual to transgender is a large part of the body of the article, and correctly so, since it is a defining element of the topic. -sche (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, transgender being an umbrella term, in and of itself, has no consensus, as mentioned in the section on terminology in the transsexual article. There is plenty of history of the term relating to a specific subset of gender diverse people (Virginia Prince). The terminology is a very long way from being settled. Chocolate vittles (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate vittles, with regard to stating that "transgender being an umbrella term, in and of itself, has no consensus," the point is that many WP:Reliable sources cite it as an umbrella term. Of course, it is also defined strictly, and the strict definition is what people usually mean when stating that someone is transgender. When calling someone transgender, people usually don't mean someone who simply cross dresses, for example. This is why we are supposed to cover both aspects, with WP:Due weight (read that policy if you have not already read it). The point is also that, as -sche and I have pointed out above, the transgender aspect should be noted in the lead; this includes the fact that it is commonly considered an umbrella term that includes "transsexual." Doing that is the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 could you please pull out the sources? I've taken a look at the online parts of the Bibliography, not the books though as I'm currently nowhere near a decent library. I am happy to take a look through the first 20 online-available sources and I have had a look through the bibliography but could not find anything specifically referring to our current conundrum of definitional controversy, though about half the online sources were 404 links and I updated the Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders from the 404 Version 6 to the current Version 7.

I would also recommend Chocolate vittles that you do the same for the argument that the disputes of definition do not require a "possibly confused with" or "distinguish" template WP:HAT. Thank you all, have a lovely day/night, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(Returning to the subject of a hatnote,) the "see also" hatnote was removed on the grounds that it's "adding weight to transsexual as a synonym for transgender", but I don't see how that's the case at all. As its documentation says, {{see also}} "is used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other, related, titles at the top of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout." Is there any serious dispute thattransgender and transsexual are related topics, titles, and words? "See also [this other topic]" is as neutral a way of directing someone to also look at another topic as I can think of; whereas, "distinguish [x from y]" is obviously a POV command. "See also" doesn't connote synonymy; indeed, over on Wiktionary (and in my experience also on Wikipedia) "see also" sections are firmly distinct from "synonyms" sections — you might say "see also" is to be distinguished from "synonyms"... ;-p -sche (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for how to summarize the "Relation to transgender identities" section in the lead; I welcome feedback:

• The use of the words transsexual (coined in 1949) and transgender (coined in 1965) has changed over time; since the 1990s transexual has generally been considered a subset of transgender, and many transgender people find the word transsexual pejorative, but some who have undergone SRS prefer it.

references

Better sourcing of the last part of the sentence would be nice. Also, the "Relation to transgender identities" section of the body of the article is a bit of a mess (it contradicts itself slightly in places) and needs updating. -sche (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason the relation to transgender identities section contradicts itself is that there are very different points of view on whether or not the "transgender umbrella" includes transsexual people. Many transsexual people see the continual attempts of inclusion of transsexuality within an overarching transgender term as appropriation of transsexuality by crossdressers and gender queer people. This is the reason this stuff doesn't belong in the lede. Promoting transgender to the lede of the article adds considerable weight to one side of the argument or the other. We're not going to get consensus. This is an argument that's been ongoing since the 1990s. FWIW, many transsexual people find the word transgender pejorative, as it reduces their legitimate identities to a desire to wear women's clothes. Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

-sche is on the right track. Drcrazy102, you and others should look on Google Books for better sources and sources to support transgender being an umbrella term that includes transsexual and/or how strictly the term transgender is used. As seen by this, this and this LGBT discussion, I turn to Google Books first to support my arguments. And I always support them when challenged on them. Using scholarly sources for these matters is better than using media sources or LGBT organization sources. I will list sources here in a day or so, using Template:Collapse. But as I've stated before, gathering sources is a pain. And, Chocolate vittles, I will see about gathering sources for your point of view as well. But we should be following the WP:Lead guideline, and should not be letting WP:Advocacy get in our way on that. The topic of transgender and its relation to transsexual belong in the lead; that's the way it is. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an updated wording with more sources. If there are no objections (or if only one user is objecting but there's consensus for inclusion), I intend to add something like this to both transsexual and transgender soon. Suggestions for improved wording are welcome.

• The use of the terms transsexual (coined in 1949) and transgender (coined in 1965) has changed over time; since the 1990s transgender has generally been considered an umbrella of which transsexual is a subset. Many trans people prefer the term transgender and find the word transsexual pejorative, but some people who desire or undergo SRS prefer the term transsexual and reject transgender.

references

-sche (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with adding your proposed addition. And given that, and what others might add with WP:Reliable sources to support their additions, I might not need to list any sources here. You are proposing that addition for the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC)

I would recommend adding at the end of the proposed addition: "... due to sex and gender being two separate labels.": That would also show the controversy between the gender vs. sex aspect of the terminology, but fully supportive of this going into the lead per lead policy. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, WP:Lead is a guideline, not a policy, but we should generally adhere to it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but where you say "many trans people", I think it's important to point out that most of those trans people wouldn't qualify as transsexual anyway, as only a subset desire SRS or identify as opposite their assigned sex. I'd feel a lot better if many was removed and some was inserted. It's not ok for non-transsexual people to tell transsexual people how to identify. Chocolate vittles (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point by Dr Crazy that we should include some explanation of the distinction between the terms / the reason for the "controversy". To keep things brief, we could say just the following in the lead:

• The term transsexual (denoting people who desire to or do change their sex through surgery to match their gender identity) is generally considered a subset of transgender, an umbrella term which includes men and women (and sometimes non-binary people) whose gender identity does not match their birth sex.

Incidentally, this highlights that the first few sentences of the current lead may need revision, because they define transsexual identically to how the article transgender defines that term, yet the reason the articles weren't merged is that they're not identical.

In any case, we could then go into more detail in the body:

• The use of the terms transsexual (coined in 1949) and transgender (coined in 1965) has changed over time. Since the 1990s, transgender has generally been considered an umbrella designation for all men and women whose gender identity does not match their birth sex (it sometimes also includes non-binary people, although these are often distinguished as genderqueer), and transsexual has been considered a subset of it. Many trans people prefer the designation transgender and reject transsexual, but some people who change their sex prefer the designation transsexual and reject transgender.

references

I kept "many" because that's the word the references use. In my experience the references are correct — most trans people reject transsexual as an overly clinical term imposed by outsiders (the medical community, starting in the 1960s) which places too much emphasis on sex (which many trans people can't afford expensive surgery to change) and on sexuality. -sche (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lets work through what's going on here. Many people, who identify as trans something but not as transsexual, prefer the term transgender, because that's how they identify. Many people who identify as transsexual prefer the term transsexual, because that's how they identify. Good so far? So now, a majority of people who identify as transgendered reject a transsexual identity and deride people who identify as transsexual. Why are we paying attention to these people?

I'll swap things around so that the transgender people can see why I'm so angry about this.

Many people, who identify as straight but not as trans prefer the term straight because that's how they identify. Many people who identify as trans prefer the term trans because that's how they identify. So now, a majority of people who identify as straight reject a trans identity and deride people who identify as trans.

When framed like this, it's bigotry. So why is it fair game for people who identify as transgendered but not as transsexual to have at the definition of transsexual?

I'll posit that practically _all_ transsexual people who identify as transsexual prefer transsexual to transgender, and practically _all_ transgender people who identify as transgender prefer transgender to transsexual, because otherwise they'd identify otherwise, wouldn't they? Saying that many trans (practically none of whom would identify as transsexual) people see transsexual as pejorative is a completely useless thing to say, and akin to saying that many cis people find trans pejorative (which they obviously do). Making the implication that transsexual is therefore pejorative to people who identify as such is incredibly dishonest and bigoted against people with a perfectly reasonable self identity. Chocolate vittles (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Per what I stated in this edit, I think that editors need to check that the sources you added here and here are being used appropriately. This is because you have more than once strayed from what sources actually state, as seen here (followup note here) and here (followup edit here), and WP:Synthesis is not allowed. Also, you should always provide the page numbers for book sources that you add. Your text states "some transsexual people reject transgender as a label imposed by cisgender bureaucrats and psychologists." I doubt that's sticking to what the sources state. Furthermore, it's clearly not just "cisgender bureaucrats and psychologists" who include transsexual people under the label "transgender." Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Well, as you know by this, this and this edit, -sche pointed out that you were using the sources inappropriately, and fixed that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)