Talk:Transgender/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Trans as s synonym for LGBTQIA+

I'm not sure where to put this, but I observe a very broad interpretation coming inot use that 'trans' means any discrepancy between birth sex and gender identity. Leaving aside the illogic of comparing a sex with a gender, it's clear that there are three birth sexes, male, female and indeterminate/intersex, but very many gender identities with many claiming more than 100. It is then argued that if say 'gay' is a gender identity, then all gay men are trans, and likewise for any other sexual orientation or sexual identity. So by this logic, everyone except cis-hetero people, and those intersex people who opt to identify as such, is trans.

Wkikpedia itself cites surveys of self-identified 'trans' people who identify as gay, lesbian, asexual, pangender, agender... What this does is to marginalize trans people and make them a subset of LGBTQIA+, harking back to the old and discredited 'trans women are failed gays' trope. (See Transphobia article.) Likewise, conflating genderqueer and trans people is illogical, because the similarities are superficial, based on rejection of birth sex, but the desired outcomes are completely different. This article seems to imply they're the same.

I'm not sure how best to express this in the context of WP, and if enough LGBTQIA+ people choose to self-identify as trans, then by WP's logic they are trans, and 'true' trans people who know they were born into the wrong sex have no label. But I don't believe this is a universally accepted view, though I can't cite authorities. But if someone can, it would provide clarity to a field that is becoming increasingly muddied.Chrismorey (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not aware of anyone the LGBTQIA+=trans argument. Are there any reliable sources discussing it?

I don’t agree that this article conflates trans and genderqueer, instead just noting that some genderqueer people also identify as trans. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify the question: do you have any sources for "LGBTQIA+" being used as a "synonym" for trans, as opposed to Trans people being part of the LGBTQIA rainbow and some Trans people also being LGB or for that matter QIA? Personally, I have never seen the proposal that any of LGB represent a gender identity rather than a sexuality/sexual orientation.

The relation between genderqueer, nonbinary and trans identities is more complicated and something I know quite a bit more about, but that doesn't seem to be the core of the question(s) you are trying to ask, so I'd like to deal with your broader statements first if at all possible. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chrismorey: Where exactly in the article do you see the claim that "gay" is a gender that means all gay men are trans, or that all intersex people are trans? Help us out here. --Equivamp - talk 19:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

it's a logical inference from the definition quoted in the article that 'Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.' 'Gay' (say) is unquestionably a 'gender identity' when applied to males sexually oriented to other males. Gay men are overwhelmingly assigned male at birth. This meets both conditions of the definition, ergo gay men are trans. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer. I can't, unfortunately, find the article in which a large minority of self-reporting trans people identified as gay, but the import was clear: that self-identified trans is a catch-all taking in everyone except cis-hetero and some intersex.

Intersex people who identify as female or male have a similar mismatch and are thus trans by this logic. But people born intersex who identify as intersex aren't trans, by the same logic. I didn't say 'all' intersex people were trans. Hope this is now clear.

The issue is not with the article per se as with the sloppy definition of 'trans' used in it. No doubt some authority has cited this, but I can't be the only one to see the big logical hole. Chrismorey (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your 'logical inference' makes any sense at all. I don't see any sources that say "gay" is a gender identity, and this article goes out of its way to differentiate being trans from one's sexual orientation identity and from being intersex. Intersex people are also only either male or female, and are (except for potential recently-allowed exceptions) assigned one or the other sex at birth, just like almost everyone else. --Equivamp - talk

Chrismorey, your claim here that 'Gay' (say) is unquestionably a 'gender identity' when applied to males sexually oriented to other males seems to be either a misunderstanding, or original research. For a male who is sexually oriented to other males, "male" is their gender identity, and "gay" is their sexuality/sexual orientation. Do you have any reliable sources asserting that "gay" is a gender identity? This seems to be a category error.

You may also be misinterpreting findings about trans and LGB identities: if it is true that most trans people identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, this is because they are attracted (sexually or romantically) to people of the same gender (i.e., male or female).

The question of whether and which intersex people are trans is more complicated, but it also doesn't affect very many people so I don't see how it would threaten to make the category of "trans" balloon to include all if LGBTQIA. My own understanding is that most intersex people are actually assigned male or female at birth, so the usual definitions would apply mutatis mutandis. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware that gender identity can be differentiated from sexual orientation. But in at least some of its usages, 'gender' is a primarily cultural value divorced from biological sex. I'm aware that in the dictionary definition, gender is close to a synonym for sex in a classificatory sense. But a lot of people, including those who consider themselves authorities, don't use it that way. 'Genderless babies' brought up to conform to neither sex-related cultural norm indisputably have a biological sex, but no 'gender', which is impossible under the traditional model. And at least one WP article conflates sexual orientation and gender (in the broad 'cultural' sense). Unfortunately, I can't locate the article concerned. I appreciate the problems of trying to keep WP consistent in such a slippery area as this, but I feel it would be more honest to acknowledge that it is a slippery area rather than strive for certainty where no consensus exists even on the definition of terms.Chrismorey (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you thinking that if gender is (in some contexts) an identity separate from anatomical sex, that gender identities cannot then be distinguished from identities rooted in sexuality? Because I have never seen that argument supported anywhere - it seems to be WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Chris, this seems to be somewhat of a free ranging discussion touching on various issues surrounding gender, identity, orientation, and sex, with comments on how they may apply to transgender issues. However, being that this is the Talk page where we try to come up with improvements to the Transgender article, it's not really for general discussion of all these topics, interesting as they may be. Do you have a specific suggestion for how to improve the article? If not, you can always continue this discussion at another venue, such as the Reference desk, for example. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's so, and I said all I wanted to. I see 'gender' used in multiple senses, and if there's no agreed practical (as opposed to dictionary) definition, IMO it's risky to build arguments on any one interpretation. English is of course a living language, and this may be an example of a word morphing - like (dare I say?) 'gay' in mid-C20? Chrismorey (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As one might expect from my prior comments, my suspicion is that your claim of no agreed practical...definition is not true in this context - "gender" here refers to gender identity, while LGB (and Q and A) represent sexuality/sexual orientation. Never the twain shall meet. The same person can be both genderqueer and queer, or agender and asexual, but those labels always represent distinct attributes of gender and sexuality, where one does not entail the other. There are of course other senses of "gender", such as grammatical gender and gender as a clumsy synonym for anatomical sex, but these are not used in this article and are, once again, easy enough to distinguish from one another IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Change ‘sex that they were assigned at birth’ to ‘sex’. It is currently factually inaccurate. Sex is not assigned. It is innate and intrinsic and determined before birth by biology. 82.34.233.169 (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Unrefenced statements

@EvergreenFir: There are parts in the article that were tagged with citation needed. They have been tagged with tag for years.

So how about this I’ll give you to October 1st to resolve those tags.CycoMa (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I just saw your edit in my watchlist and thought "wait, I have a reference for that". I'll skim the article and look for other CN tags and try to fill them in. Oct 1 works fine for me. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Gender expression

"Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth" I think we should delete "or gender expression" from this definition. Are afab who have woman's gender idenity and prefer to show masculine gender expression transgender? I think not, they are cisgender gender-nonconforming women, because they are afab and identify themselves as women. I think we should clearly distinguish cisgender gender-nonconforming people and transgender people. Gender nonconformity is not a special case of transgenderism.Reprarina (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You're certainly right, and this was discussed recently before, but the issue is that the sources currently in the article use gender expression, and the sources are what articles must be based on. Someone suggested reviewing newer sources but I'm not sure if anything came of that. --Equivamp - talk 22:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In Canada, "gender expression" and "gender identity" are each constitutionally protected against discrimination (since 2016), and both are referenced in the Classification of gender and Classification of cisgender and transgender used in the 2021 Census of Population. So I think it would be premature to assume that "gender expression" is no longer relevant to the definition of gender (and to transgender people in general). While the argument can of course be made that gender expression is even less adequately fitted to a linear spectrum than gender identity - in fact, I may have made that argument myself - that doesn't mean it has become irrelevant to the concepts of gender and of "transgender". Newimpartial (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Equivamp that newer sources should be reviewed. Newimpartial, while it is true that gender expression is relevant to gender and transgender people, this topic does not seem to be generally defined by it, and not in a way that implies that one could be transgender by expression without identity. I recall sources using "identity" as the sole criterion, and perhaps I or the OP will present some soon. I'm not sure exactly how the Canadian census defines it, but that isn't really relevant anyway because census bureaus are government entities, which have a poor track record on academic topics, and indeed other governments and their census bureaus likely define gender in other ways. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've long noticed how some people (including, as is the root of the issue here, some of the ones who write RS) say things about gender expression, or gender identity, or gender nonconforming, etc that suggest they think only trans people have or do those things... someone even went viral on twitter in the past few weeks for saying "there are no pronouns in the Bible", hah. That take is not RS, obviously. But I can understand why some definitions include gender expression, especially e.g. older definitions from eras when crossdressers were also included. If we shift to an identity-only definition, it'd probably make sense to move text about the definitions that refer to "gender expression" down into the section on the evolution and scope of the term (which already has text about historical inclusion of crossdressers, etc). -sche (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I agree that gender expression is problematic. I understand it is related the topic. But, gender expression isn’t part of the definition of transgender.CycoMa (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've reviewed newer sources. Overwhelmingly, they endorse the broader definition of transgender that includes "gender expression." One example from just two years ago is Organizing for Transgender Rights: Collective Action, Group Development, and the Rise of a New Social Movement -- "There are numerous definitions of the term 'transgender,' but the following definition appears to be widely accepted and is the one I adopt: 'Transgender is' 'a'n umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms -- including transgender (Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation, n.d.) Most transgender organizations hold that even defining the term 'transgender' is somewhat limiting, as many people who view themselves as transgender may not fit a specific definition, and many who fit a specific definition may not identify as transgender (see, for example, Sylvia Rivera Law Project n.d.). Moreover, there are ongoing debates within the transgender community (and without) about what the term really means."

Here are more examples (with the exception of the first one, which is from 2018) within the last year or two including "gender expression" just for review:

• Affirmative Mental Health Care for Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth: A Clinical Guide -- "Transgender: This is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with their sex designated at birth."
• The Diversity Style Guide -- "Transgender (adj.) An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth."
• Queer Adolescent Literature as a Complement to the English Language Arts Curriculum --" Transgender (adj.)—An umbrella term for people whose gender identity or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth."
• Sperling Pediatric Endocrinology E-Book -- Transgender: This is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with their sex."

And one from 2019 and one from this year excluding "gender expression":

• Art Therapy Practices for Resilient Youth: A Strengths-Based Approach to At-Promise Children and Adolescents -- "The word transgender is used to define people whose gender identity is different from that typically associated with their sex assigned at birth."
• Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to Child and Adolescent Mental Health: Theory, Practice, Research -- "Transgender is an adjective, used as a collective term, to describe the full range of people whose gender identity differs from that which would be typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth (APA, 2015)."

Sources cite GLAAD for the definition a lot. Anyway, I also understand people's objection to including "gender expression", but it's what sources defining the term usually say. The definition that includes "gender expression" also isn't really an old definition. I think that's the newer discourse. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

-sche you mention cross dressers but, are cross dressers really part of the modern day definition?CycoMa (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an umbrella term. We can't do anything about that. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Cross dressers does not go under the trans umbrella as it is not a the same thing. To cross dress generally refers to dressing or presenting a different way for a certain amount of time. It's an activity while being trans is not an activity but a state of being in a way. You are trans or you're not trans; someone who hasn't realized they're trans or aren't out of the closet yet are still trans and someone who thought they were trans but realised later that they weren't are not trans. Cross dressing is a temporary thing, the person dresses as what they do not identify with. You can be trans and cross dresser. To cross dress does not make someone trans; trans does not mean cross dressers. --Faptastique (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cisgender (sometimes cissexual, or shortened to cis) describes a person whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.[1] Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.[1][2][3]

Following these definitions, gender nonconforming cisgender people are both cisgender and transgender. Are sources which include "or gender expression" in the definition of transgenderism the most authoritative?.. Do exist authoritative sources which explain the differense between gender nonconformity and transgenderism?Reprarina (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Where do you get the idea that "gender nonconforming" behaviour can be equated with "gender expression that differs" from the sex AAB? It seems to be that most "gender nonconforming" behavior has very little to do with "gender expression". Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Not according to the gender expression article. That says, "Gender expression, or gender presentation, is a person's behavior, mannerisms, interests, and appearance that are associated with gender in a particular cultural context, specifically with the categories of femininity or masculinity....These categories rely on stereotypes about gender." So, a woman with, say, short hair and no makeup (stereotypically masculine aspects of appearance) who likes, say, working on cars (stereotypically masculine behavior, interests, mannerisms) is actually somewhat transgender, according to the Transgender and Gender expression entries. Clearly, something is wrong. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Your reading of women with short hair and no makeup is a terrible example, that would require immense intermediate assumptions before it could be an example of even "gender nonconforming" behaviour, much less "gender expression" that differs from the sex AAB. It is like saying that twinks are trans. Steady on there, bucko. Newimpartial (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Blame the stereotypes and the confusing wording of the articles then. I certainly don't put any stock in those stereotypes, but there are lots of stereotypes out there floating around amongst at least some people. The definitions on Wikipedia of gender nonconformity and 'gender expression differing from sex AAB' do not meaningfully distinguish between them, and neither have you. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
          • I'll give you an example that works in many cultures: women terrorists are almost always engaged in a high degree of gender nonconformity, but might have a very conventional gender expression for their cultural background. For a much tamer example, women in STEM in the USA in the second half of the 20th century were engaged in gender nonconformity regardless of their gender expression. Even when they were not also terrorists. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
            • That all counts as behavior and interests, which Wikipedia currently includes as gender expression. But anyway, we're veering off topic. Here is a more pointed question. Are drag queens necessarily transgender when in drag? I say no, the current definition says yes. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
              • Ultimately, that is a theological question. I also say no, but then I (following some but not sources) insist that behaviour is only "gender expression" given certain intentions and not others. So cross-casting in theatre is not expressive of the actor's gender, unless the actor feels that it is.
            • So the definition I am following also says that drag queens are not necessarily transgender, if that isn't how they feel about their drag. And for the drag kings I know, at least, in spite of their generally stoic temperament, it is usually pretty easy to find out whether they feel they are engaged in expressing their gender, or not.Newimpartial (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC) second paragraph added by Newimpartial (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

              As is true for many definitions, being trans might involve exhibiting qualities X, Y, and Z, but showing X, Y, and Z may not necessitate trans identity. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    • If all people who have gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth transgender, we can write about it in the article Gender expression. I'm not sure it would be correct. But I think the articles shall not contradict each other and shall provide relevant information from authoritative sources.Reprarina (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Transgender - adding short paragraph about transgender people in professional sports

This wiki page about the topic Transgender is an excellent example how a scientific Wiki page should always be. No politics or personal standpoints were used at first glance. What is stated is facts and numbers.

One of the recurring things in this article is that in the world we live on, there is a lot of prejudice and discrimination against transgender people. Discrimination is a reprehensible act, no matter who the target of that discrimination is, and should always be condemned.

That being said, I feel the topic of transgenders in sports, especially competitive and professional sports.

Medical fact: People who were born biologically male will have larger skeletal muscles than biologically born females. Larger skeletal muscles means a higher maximum power output which translates as being able to run faster, jump further, jump higher, hit harder, etc...

People who were born biologically female will have a longer endurance and recuperation than biologically born males.

Hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery, or psychotherapy. output (if needed and/or wanted) can be helpful for treating gender dysphoria but can't alter or transform skeletal musculature nor the structure and strength of their bones.

Therefor transgender women (who were biologically born males) will have an unfair advantage when competing against biologically born women. This would be considered competition distortion. One example currently is Lia Thomas in the NCAA.

Any feedback on this is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.241.112 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of topics related to transgender people, so many topics are written about in separate articles. In this case, we have the article Transgender people in sports which goes into more depth. It's linked in the sidebar at the top right of the page. Please don't use this talk page as a forum to espouse your feelings about the topic under the guise of suggesting a new section without actually suggesting improvements supported by reliable sources (see WP:NOTFORUM). Politanvm ^talk 00:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2015. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katherinespeer, Burt Macklin aka Tim Buckanowski, Brianallen90802, Gillian Ward, Jrweaver737, LindseyPhillips, Vvu9491.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Princessnjoku. Peer reviewers: Lillyantt17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Non neutral language

Saying ‘some feminists’ do not support transgender people is not neutral language when what is at issue, in the view of those feminists, is an ideological demand that men can declare themselves to be women at Will and thus access women-only spaces. Those feminists would argue they are not hostile to the people but to the ideology. But that distinction - whether one regards it as legitimate or not is not the issue here - is editorialised out of existence here by a use of language that a priori stigmatises ‘some feminists’. 2A02:C7F:F682:5700:DED:3DAA:165C:EC6E (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified as a minority of feminists. --Equivamp - talk 10:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Trans*

Why does the Transgender article contain no reference to trans* ? This umbrella term was introduced about 2010, and made it to the OED in 2018, where the definition states that the asterisk serves "to indicate the inclusion of gender identities such as gender-fluid, agender, etc., alongside transsexual and transgender." It could be because academics in American universities dislike the term, but I doubt it, here is Judith Butler quoted in The Guardian in 2021: "I’ve been identified variously as butch, queer, trans* for over 50 years." A reputable justification for the term is provided by /Duke University TSq 2014: "Although transgender has been used since the early 1990s as an umbrella term to cover the widest possible range of gender variation, it is now understood in some circles to represent only binary notions of transness and to refer only to trans men and trans women rather than to those who contest the gender binary (Killermann 2012). Proponents of adding the asterisk to trans argue that it signals greater inclusivity of new gender identities and expressions and better represents a broader community of individuals. Trans* is thus meant to include not only identities such as transgender, transsexual, trans man, and trans woman that are prefixed by trans- but also identities such as genderqueer, neutrios, intersex, agender, two-spirit, cross-dresser, and genderfluid." Brymor (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Not saying we shouldn't mention it, but the asterisk is rather passe now. Just regular trans is the default for most (e.g., [1]). But here's an article from Time about the OED addition as well as some of its controversy. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. I agree that trans* should be mentioned - if Judith Butler can refer to herself as trans* in 2021, and there is no entry in Wikipedia to explain this, that is a significant omission. I shall not be attempting the edit myself, however - I personally think that over-ambitious umbrella terms in this field are bound to offend many members of the community, and are best avoided. Brymor (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Transgenderism

The antiquated term "transgenderism" is used in the 2nd paragraph of the history section, not in a way to keep with historical accuracy through quoting, it is simply being used as a word to encompass the idea of "transgender". This term is referenced in context in other parts of the article in giving why it has fallen out of use; it is still used by those who are either out of date with their knowledge or who are discriminative against the trans community however it is no longer considered correct even within medical circles and is held in distain by the majority of the trans community. LandmarkFilly54 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@LandmarkFilly54 Changed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

New section to Scientific Studies

Hello everyone. My first time on Wikipedia. I made it just for this. I would like to add some details to the scientific studies section, or perhaps create an entirely new section.

The study I'd like to reference is "Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children's Past-Life Memories". Here is the full APA citation: Pehlivanova, M., Janke, M. J., Lee, J., & Tucker, J. B. (2018). Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(4), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1523266

Other references to include: This podcast: https://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation (this is definitely worth a quick read/listen)

These references from the Wikipedia article on Dr. Ian Stevenson, who was a lead professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia for 50 years: Stevenson, I (2000). "The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance". Medical Hypotheses. 54 (4): 652–9. doi:10.1054/mehy.1999.0920. PMID 10859660. S2CID 15947669.

Stevenson, I (1977). "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 164 (5): 305–26. doi:10.1097/00005053-197705000-00002. PMID 864444. S2CID 30398311.

And this book by Dr. Ian Stevenson: Stevenson, I. (1997). Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects (2 Vols.). Praeger

This article may be worth a read as well, but I'm not sure if it should be referenced: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

Here is an example of what how the section could read: "Research conducted by Dr. Ian Stevenson, a lead professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia for 50 years, suggested certain elements of one's personality are defined by a factor other than genetics and the environment. As he continued his research, Dr. Stevenson began to believe reincarnation could be this third contributing factor. He traveled all over the world and conducted over 3000 case studies of children claiming to remember someone's past life. Not only did his work claim to show children remembering details of someone else's past they couldn't have possibly known about, it also culminated in a selection of 200 case studies where he claimed to have linked the birthmarks and birth defects on children recalling past memories, with fatal wounds inflicted on an actual person who died, and whose details matched the memories of the child. A study completed by researchers at the University of Virginia following in his footsteps found that 95% of gender non-conforming children who had memories of a past life, had memories of a past life of the opposite sex from the one they were born."

Please note that I am a random person; not from the University of Virginia. Literally if you Google "trans past lives" this reference is the first to come up so it's not hard to find. Also please know I am not trans, however I don't believe this is controversial as it is very scientific, and I even think this information could really make the world a better place, so please approve it asap. Thank you.

LightProof1995 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I would support a version of this getting included. There's certainly interesting reading behind the links and a quick google search shows several million results making it's inclusion mention-worthy in my humble opinion. I look forward to further comments from my colleagues at WP:LGBT. JC aka Jthekid15 (Communications) 21:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, this is WP:FRINGE material and doesn't belong on a broad overview of the topic 'Transgender'. Equivamp - talk 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, while I am new, as I understand it, this is not WP:FRINGE material as my sources are peer-reviewed. Specifically, the "Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories" is peer-reviewed in the International Journal of Sexual Health, "The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance" is peer-reviewed in Medical Hypotheses, "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation" is peer-reviewed in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, and "Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects" was peer-reviewed in two journals: Omega, and the Journal of the American Society for Physical Research. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Publication in peer-reviewed journals can establish acceptance of a theory, but for Wikipedia's purposes, Ian Stevenson's theory of past life memories as a metaphysical phenomena (rather than the more likely psychological causes) is a Fringe Theory with a capital F. I'd also charitably call it crankery, bunkum, and balderdash. See the criticism section on his article for discussion of his work, which certainly does not reflect current scientific consensus.

The 2018 study is certainly interesting, but I don't think it warrants more than a single sentence of commentary. A reference to it may be more suitable at Childhood gender nonconformity, if worded neutrally. The addition you've proposed has hardly anything do with the subject here, and seems more concerned with defending the existence of reincarnation. It would not be an acceptable addition here in its current state. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 23:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the first paragraph of the "criticism of Ian Stevenson" you link is this: "The Journal of the American Medical Association referred to Stevenson's Cases of the Reincarnation Type (1975) as a "painstaking and unemotional" collection of cases that were "difficult to explain on any assumption other than reincarnation."[24] In September 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's research.[25] Writing in the journal, the psychiatrist Harold Lief described Stevenson as a methodical investigator and added, "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known (I have said as much to him) as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'."[26] The issue proved popular: the journal's editor, the psychiatrist Eugene Brody, said he had received 300–400 requests for reprints.[24]" Note that The Journal of the American Medical Association is yet another peer-reviewed medical journal in addition to the ones I listed previously. So obviously there are both plenty of people who think this is hogwash, and plenty of people who are academically-minded and who believe this is could be real. I agree this should be represented on the Childhood gender nonconformity page, however IF this is real then it could benefit any children out there with their gender dysphoria who ARE trans because they were born in a completely different body in a past life; also this not-hogwash-in-my-humble-opinion idea COULD help stop violence against trans people especially in places like Brazil where murders of transgender peoples are horribly rampant, but also over a quarter of the population believes in reincarnation (Spiritism). Therefore to not have this information be as public as possible seems a crime against humanity and that's exactly why I came here and wrote it. If the paragraph needs to be revised okay but please include something here. EDIT: I revised it slightly, so it doesn't sound like it's necessarily defending reincarnation now, and the background on him can just lead into the more relevant sentence on gender nonconformity. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. This is hogwash. Absent a rigorous scientist consensus, we can't possibly include this. As far as it might improve the trans reputation in some places, that is hardly Wikipedias job. We print what can be verified in reliable sources, no matter how it makes subjects look. Plus, saying trans folks exist because of reincarnation would probably be quite poorly recieved by audiences who don't believe in it. The only way this could be included is if you found a different source that said that some cultural practices believe trans folks are reincarnated. But we would be careful to note it is a sincerely held cultural belief, not a possible scientific answer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the sources I list appear in 6(!!!) peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. If that is not a "rigorous scientist consensus" please define what is. Also please actually read the links I posted before calling what I wrote hogwash. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree with CaptainEek. That’s WP:GREATWRONGS, not WP:NPOV. Reincarnation is 90% unfounded superstition and 10% WP:FRINGE theory (and that’s being generous), a few possibly respectable scientists saying “maybe” doesn’t pass the Sagan Standard, and information about it should not be treated with WP:UNDUE weight. Dronebogus (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the sources I list appear in 6(!!!) peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals -- a lot more than a few scientists saying "maybe." I am new to Wikipedia so I didn't understand WP:GREATWRONGS until you mentioned it. Regardless, I still believe this can be mentioned here while retaining WP:NPOV and not going beyond its WP:UNDUE weight. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

“reincarnation exists” is an extraordinary claim. In order for it to be mentioned here it would need A LOT more than just six papers. Dronebogus (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that this isn't a WP:COATRACK for sources about reincarnation without mention of gender related topics. --Equivamp - talk 01:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2018 article is the most important one to be referenced. It talks about the reincarnation stuff a lot. It really details how the children aren't just making it up -- Past life regression in adults may be fake, but the past-life memories of children seem to be real... Perhaps it can be condensed but I feel something about Dr. Ian Stevenson should still be mentioned. Maybe a sentence is needed linking nonconformity in children with gender dysphoria, which the occurrence of in a person is defined as being transgender. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like that would end up running afoul of WP:SYNTH if you're using that to make claims about why that source applies to this topic... Equivamp - talk 01:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the 2018 source makes the connection between transgender identity and gender nonconformity here: "Gender nonconforming behaviors in the cases included wearing clothes/hairstyles or engaging in play more typical of the nonnatal sex (or reluctance to engage in sex-typical play or have same-sex playmates) and gender dysphoria or transgender identification (Stevenson, 1977b; Tucker & Keil, 2001)." LightProof1995 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: literally all of your edits except for maybe one are to this article or its talk page. Several users have all agreed this is probably not worth including in this article. You have not provided any “extraordinary proof” to bolster your claims and probably never will be able to. If you don’t find something else to do you may be blocked per WP:SPA WP:CIR WP:NPOV and WP:BLUDGEON. I understand you are probably acting in good faith but we can’t sit here and find different ways to say “no” over and over. Dronebogus (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I made a new page on processing aluminum. Also WP:BITE. Also these are the last edits I will make to this for at least a month, obviously I didn't know about the Single-Purpose account stuff. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Are any of these sources secondary, or are they all primary research? Politanvm ^talk 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure. I don't think I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. However, I am not affiliated with the University of Virginia in any way and I didn't contribute to any of the references I present. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a brief guide to Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources at WP:PSTS. A primary source would be someone sharing about their research results, while a secondary source would be someone writing about the primary source. Reputably published secondary sources are the gold standard for Wikipedia. Primary sources need to be used with extreme care. Politanvm ^talk 03:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• This reminds me of my favorite thread on Quora [2], which shows just how bad published or peer reviewed research actually can be. Not all research is created equal. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Please don't edit war over the language used in this article; discuss here instead, as needed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Limited mention of detransition

There is only one mention of the topic Detransition in this article: a single sentence in the section Mental healthcare that says "Others regret having undergone the procedure and wish to detransition."

Given that detransition has a fairly lengthy article of its own, and is a topic that is entirely within the scope of Transgender, it seems like it is deserving of a section or subsection in this main article. Kane5187 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that subsection already exists. Transgender#Detransition. It seems about the right size as per WP:DUE and links to the main article. Theheezy (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, I see you added it. Theheezy (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Unclear

I genuinely don't understand the difference between this (transgender) and transsexual. Both leads attempt to explain it to the reader, but in my perception both fail. Both mention gender identity and sex assignment, but it's simply not clear what is the difference. --77.162.8.57 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The two terms mean more or less the same thing but carry different historical baggage. There might be a case for merging the articles. I'm not sure. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

As described in the lead paragraphs, "transsexual" generally refers to transgender people who have undergone some medical procedure(s) (often surgery) to affirm their gender. Anecdotally, I don't hear "transsexual" used often anymore, and more often hear "trans" as an umbrella term. Politanvm ^talk 23:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I believe the difference is here on the transsexual page: "transsexuals are people who... desire to permanently transition to the sex or gender with which they identify". I.e., transsexuals are defined by wanting to undergo sex reassignment surgery, whereas not all transgender people want to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Also, it says on this page there were already two discussions on merging those two pages, in both 2008 and 2019, both of which ended in them deciding not to merge them. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reactions. If this (quoting LightProof1995) "transsexuals are defined by wanting to undergo sex reassignment surgery, whereas not all transgender people want to undergo sex reassignment surgery" would be included in the article, it would make the difference a lot clearer, I think. --77.162.8.57 (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s basically already in the lead (Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.) and subsection (Since the 1990s, transsexual has generally been used to refer to the subset of transgender people who desire to transition permanently to the gender with which they identify and who seek medical assistance (for example, sex reassignment surgery) with this.). Politanvm ^talk 12:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Transsexual is largely deprecated nowadays in favor of trans or transgender, regardless of surgical status. This is a controversial topic in the trans community and I don't have time to find more sources on this right now, but the GLAAD Media Reference Guide has this to say on the subject:

Transsexual (adj.)

An older term that originated in the medical and psychological communities. As the gay and lesbian community rejected homosexual and replaced it with gay and lesbian, the transgender community rejected transsexual and replaced it with transgender. Some people within the trans community may still call themselves transsexual. Do not use transsexual to describe a person unless it is a word they use to describe themself. If the subject of your news article uses the word transsexual to describe themself, use it as an adjective: transsexual woman or transsexual man.

Funcrunch (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I think anon has a good point. We could do a better job distinguishing the articles. I had to sit and puzzle for a few minutes to make sure I understand our definition of transsexual, which I don't think exactly meshes with common usage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Both terms have evolved over time, but transgender much more so than transsexual, which has changed less, and also has become somewhat ossified. In addition, transgender, being the more contemporary and more actively evolving term, has a multiplicity of meanings that are not all agreed upon even within the community, one of which is the umbrella term which in its broadest sense sometimes includes cross-dressers or drag, while transsexual never does. But also echoing IP's call for clarification, which is reasonable, and possibly even a merger. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the scope of Transsexual needs to be clarified---a fair bit of its content is just a fork of this article. I see the sentiment of merging the whole thing into Transgender § Terminology, but I think the term clearly has standalone notability, and redirecting it would provoke the inevitable moaning about "transsexual erasure" by the "woke genderist mob".
IMO an appropriate, more terminology-focused scope for Transsexual is to explain (1) the history of the term, (2) its relation to transgender, and (3) its usage in the modern day. Information about medical transitioning belongs at Gender transition as it is not exclusive to people who identify as transsexual. Just a thought. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

the definition of sex and how it relates to the stated definition and use for transgender and transsexual

Sex is defined as which gametes an organism produces. In accordance with our stance, it has been established, even on the sex wikipedia page, that there are "no other universal distinctions between male and female"-- only differences in gametes. Sex is based on which gametes you produce, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to transition from one sex to another. The current trans article states not only that it IS possible, but that transGENDER (transition of GENDER) is the same as this supposedly possible transition of sex, which undoes all the discussion about the difference between sex and gender that has been had over the last several decades. Plainly, you cannot transition from one sex to another- and this Wikipedia page should not be spreading misinformation saying that such a thing is possible. Trust me, if it were, I would be on it.

Moving on from this, the definition of transsexual is NOT somebody who literally transitions from one sex to another because 1. as we established, that is not possible with modern medicine. And 2. If transexuals supposedly do transition to become another sex, then that means both that 1. they aren't that sex innately and that there is some sex to transition to, insinuating that there ARE more physical differences aside from gametes, and 2. that they are "more" of that sex than just transgender people are, which is extremely transmedicalist. Not all women have high estrogen, breasts, hips, etc. Transexuals pursue a physical transition to achieve SECONDARY sex characteristics STEREOTYPICALLY associated with another sex than their own. Saying otherwise would indicate that you think things like hormones, breasts, hips, etc are what make the female sex when we have already gone to great lengths to establish that nothing more than ova gametes define that.

Transsexuals do not transition physically to another sex. I propose we take the claim that they magically can, down. It is impossible to transition to another sex, I propose we take anything down that insinuates that. Nativebun (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) User:Nativebun

You have just posted a big wad of what we on Wikipedia call original research. Do you have any sources on the topic of this article that support your point of view? If not, we cannot according to Wikipedia's core values, include it in this article in anyway.

By the way, nothing in the stable version of this article suggests that anyone can change their gamete production (except in the sense of ceasing to produce gametes, I suppose), so all of your commentary on that particular issue suggests a failure of reading comprehension on your part. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The article states that transsexuals can change sex. The definition of sex refers to which gametes an organism produces, nothin more nothing less. Transsexuals are not able to change which gametes they produce. Your response suggests a failure of reading comprehension on your part regarding my proposal. Nativebun (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

When the article refers to transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another it is not referring to gamete production, which seems obvious to me as a native speaker of English. If you don't understand what "transition" means in this context, you are not competent to edit this article IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You cannot transition from one sex to another. I am literally trans, and what we CAN do is transition to having the secondary sex characteristics of another sex-- that is what we mean by transition, and it is insulting that you think we have to pretend otherwise. If you don't understand that, then IMO you are not competent enough to make edits let alone challenge others on this subject. Nativebun (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

While it may be tempting to edit Wikipedia to reflect one's personal experience, this is never a good idea. What matters on Wikipedia is not your personal language relating to "sex" vs. "secondary sexual characteristics", but rather the language used in recent, reliable sources -like the ones used in this article. Please also see the article sex assignment, and its sources, to see where your edits in article space diverged from what the RS actually say. Nobody says or implies that anyone can stop producing one set of gametes and start producing another, and your repeated assertion to the contrary does point to CIR issues on your part. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nativebun, thanks for engaging on the talk page. As Newimpartial says, your suggestions read like original research. When making potentially controversial change suggestions, you'll need to show that the current article in some way doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. For example:

1. Does the article as currently written do original research? In other words, is it adding commentary or synthesizing the cited sources in a way the sources themselves do not?
2. Are there reliable sources missing, that would support your edit suggestion?
3. Are the current sources inappropriately unduly weighting a certain viewpoint.

Without some argument grounded in Wikipedia guidelines, your suggestions aren't likely to gain consensus from the community. It may be helpful to search the archives for this Talk page, using the "search archives" box at the top of the page, to make sure you're not repeating arguments that have already been addressed. Best, Politanvm ^talk 20:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response! I suppose then that there are reliable sources missing to support the statement that it is possible to change sex, the definition of sex being grounded in which gametes an organism produces. If someone could pull up scholarly medical articles showing that a recent treatment has been devised for humans to be able to change which gametes we produce, and that this is something that all self-identified transsexuals use, then that would be lovely. There are reliable sources missing to support the statement made in the article that anyone who identifies as transsexual is somehow able to accomplish this feat of changing sex that no modern medicine is currently capable of. Nativebun (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The term sex, like most words in English, carries multiple meanings. In the case of transition it is generally sex hormones and anatomical sex that are altered, according to the reliable sources relevant to the topic of this article. If you have recent, relevant and reliable sources supporting your apparently original contention that "sex" in all instances means precisely what you want it to mean, I would love to consult those source for myself. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The EXACT same thing can be said to you- if you can provide scholarly articles supporting your apparently original contention that "sex" in all instances means precisely what you want it to mean, I would love to consult those source for myself. Nativebun (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant sources - for example, those relating to changing one's legal sex - are already cited in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You can see all of the citations in this article. You haven’t provided any new reliable sources. You haven’t identified any claims in the article that aren’t supported by its inline citation. Without offering something tangible, this discussion isn’t going to go anywhere, and we’re all going to waste our time without making any improvements to the article. So please provide some reliable source, or point out specific claims in the article that aren’t supported by their inline citations. Politanvm ^talk 17:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to be snarky and make a comment about clownfish. but I'll just repeat what I said on your user talk page but you didn't reply to:

I suggest starting with sex assignment at birth if you are less familiar with the term. For humans, the current nomenclature is not "biological sex" (e.g., see the AMA memo here and BOT Report 15 here).

Your personal views (and mine) don't much matter here. Professional organizations and reliable sources demonstrably use "sex assignment at birth" and define sex assignment as based on not just gamates but also gonads, tubrecals/genitalia, presence of a uterus, hormones, and structures of the 23rd chromosome for humans. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay if you'd like to include those other areas that's fine, but it doesn't support your position. Transsexuals cannot attain a uterus, new gonads, genitalia, and new chromosomal structures. Perhaps they can cut their bodies to make superficial structures made to appear visibly similar to actual genitalia etc of another sex, but they cannot have a real one- and that is okay. They certainly cannot attain new chromosomal structures. The only thing that they can change is hormones, but science has reached a consensus that due to the great amount of hormonal variance within sexes anyways, changing hormones does not constitute sex change. This is part of the argument supporting no hormone requirements/restrictions for trans women in sports. Transsexuals cannot change sex. People who self-identify as transexuals do not necessarily even try changing what is sometimes called "sex re-assignment surgery", many ie blaire white calls herself transsexual just because she got chest implants and hormones. Unless you are insinuating that breasts of a certain size and certain levels of hormones are necessary for being of the female sex? Nativebun (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nativebun: Your personal views on what it means to be transsexual frankly don't matter here and this talk page is not a forum to share them or argue about breast sizes or Youtube celebs. We go by what reliable sources say. You neeed to find some reliable sources that support your claims and explain how they relate to the reliable sources in the article. Otherwise you are only using this space and article to make a WP:POINT about what you view as "the truth" which is fine to do on Twitter but not Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nativebun: Per Politanvm's comment, find a reliable source or drop the stick. Using sex to mean "any sexual trait or characteristic" is a well-established practice. You may personally believe that the term refers strictly to gamete-production, and is therefore unalterable by all medical intervention, but for encyclopediac purposes, that's a fringe theory. That's not what the sentence in Sex ("The type of gametes produced by an organism defines its sex") is saying (and even if it was, Wikipedia is not a reliable source).

Regardless of your good intentions, or (borrowing an empty dogwhistle) "biological reality", defining sex in humans this way has very little purpose, except to deny and exclude the experiences of transsexual people who identify as having changed sexes. It also has troubling implications for people whose bodies produce neither eggs nor spermatazoa. I'd never assume this was your intent, but it's nonetheless a change which cedes a lot of ground to the perennial "gender skeptical" POV warriors who wish to describe trans women in terms like "a male-sexed person who identifies as a woman", etc.

Yes, sex reassignment surgery does "reassign sex". No, trans∗ women do not need to have female-sexed gametes or genitals to be female, and yes, we should compete in women's sports, for reasons which are as self-evident as they are unrelated to the definition of biological sex. The article lede implies nothing to the contary.

Wikipedia is beholden to Verifiability, and a result, articles do not have the luxury of unpacking every minor epistemological nuance in the distinction between sex and gender. Moreover, Neutral point of view means it reflects only beliefs held by prominent reliable sources, not its editors. Learn to live with that, and enjoy editing, or perhaps (per EvergreenFir's suggestion) open an account on Twitter or YouTube. Sincerely, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 23:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

it's disturbing that you believe this Nativebun (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

​ Believe what? RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 04:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Would like to help you with this, Nativebun. But I've lost patients with this general topic, months ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

no worries haha wikipedia is exhausting sometimes, take care Nativebun (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just following up here that I agree with Nativebun’s edits, so I have restored the article. Entremark (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is quite clearly no consensus here for Nativebun's edit. Please self revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How odd for an account created in early December to make their first 10 edits today and immediately start continuing this edit war... And their user page makes a fart joke to boot. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Note I have just stricken the comment above by Entremark per WP:SOCKSTRIKE as that user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nativebun: Hi NativeBun :) I believe I can help you with your section (Keep in mind, I'm new too, so I can't put it up myself). Yeah, the current into paragraph of the Sex Wikipedia article should probably be edited for more clarity too. Just as EvergreenFir says, sex can actually be determined not just from gametes, but also gonads, external anatomy, internal anatomy, hormones, and presence/absence of a y chromosome. The Sexual Characteristics Wikipedia page has a great table explaining it. The current intro paragraphs of the sex Wikipedia page also mention chromosomes determining sex after saying gametes do but really it should mention all these Evergreen and I listed as determining sex. I think the statement of "The types of gametes an organism produces defines its sex" as determining sex is probably more used to define the sex of animals, not humans. The gamete-only definition has obvious problems when applied to humans as many people can't produce gametes at all (as others have said). A section here explaining this could be titled "Transgender and Intersex Persons". Here is an example of a paragraph for it, with references:

"Transgender people and Intersex people are separate identities, however they are not mutually exclusive identities. Intersex is a term referring to people born with non-binary sexual characteristics, while transgender people can be born with a body considered to have all-male or all-female sexual characteristics. Both groups are often marginalized and face discrimination, but are separate groups, as oftentimes intersex people often identify as male or female, choosing whichever description their bodies most closely fit. Both transgender and intersex persons may undergo sex reassignment surgery to alter their primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Even though a transgender person who is born all-male or all-female and then gets sex reassignment surgery to alter their sexual characteristics would have a similar physical body as an intersex person instead of an all-male or all-female body, the term "intersex" would still not apply to them as they were not born with those nonbinary sexual characteristics.

LightProof1995 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Detransition section contains outdated information, and is directly contradicted by the Detransition article.

Currently the Detransition section is directly contradicted by the article Detransition, which contains more recent information on the subject. The number of Transgender individuals who are estimated to detransition has been found to be much smaller than is quoted here. To be precise, it reads, " ... with estimates ranging from less than 1% to as many as 8%". As the topic is widely cited in transphobic arguments, this is a matter of grave concern. Because it's consensus that outdated or potentially harmful information should be quickly removed from pages covering sensitive topics, I am going to be bold and alter the section to reflect current information and align it with the larger article. Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have re-written the section to include up-to-date information and to agree with the larger Detransition article per discussion, but it probably needs a dash of copyediting, as this was a quick job to correct out of date information. I will be touching up the formatting and grammar shortly, but welcome attention from other editors. ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please help protect LGBTQ+ and minority representation on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic putty? Rien! (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, it's a bit early for me to be reading bold text. I agree that this needs to be resolved. Can we slightly expand the current text to cover the more well regarded studies on Detransition and give the overall clearer picture to stick to WP:NPOV?

I was thinking something like this:

Detransition refers to the cessation or reversal of a transgender identification or gender transition. Formal studies of detransition have been few in number, of disputed quality, and politically controversial. Estimates of the rate at which detransitioning occurs vary with estimates ranging from less than 1% to as many as 8%. Studies have reported higher rates of desistance among prepubertal children. A 2016 review of 10 prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found desistance rates ranging from 61% to 98%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. Those who undergo sex reassignment surgery have very low rates of detransition or regret. A 2005 Dutch study included 162 adults who received sex reassignment surgery, 126 of whom participated in follow-up assessments one to four years after surgery. Two individuals expressed regret at follow-up, only one of whom said that they would not transition again if given the opportunity. The remaining 124 out of 126 (98%) expressed no regrets about transitioning. A 2021 meta-analysis of 27 studies concluded that "there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after [gender-affirmation surgery]".

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey collected responses from individuals who identified as transgender at the time of the survey. 8% of respondents reported having ever detransitioned; 62% of that group were living as a gender other than the one assigned to them at birth at the time of the survey. About 36% reported having detransitioned due to pressure from parent, 33% because it was too difficult, 31% due to discrimination, 29% due to difficulty getting a job, 26% pressure from family members, 18% pressure from a spouse, and 17% due to pressure from an employer.

Thoughts @Atomic putty? Rien!, @Kane5187?

I think trying to mention "censorship around this topic" is not very WP:NPOV, and we should stick to the general statement of, "Formal studies of detransition have been few in number, of disputed quality, and politically controversial." Theheezy (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear User:Theheezy: Thank you for your speedy reply, and for providing detailed and accurate content. I actually think that what you've come up with is perfect, and I endorse substituting it for the existing section, pending further copyediting. I apologize for the bold text-- as a Transgender Wikipedian, I was somewhat alarmed to read outdated information on such a sensitive and important article. I deeply appreciate your prompt action and attention to policy. <3 Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to make the changes along that rough outline as it's the most reasonable presentation for now. Theheezy (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do! Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey thanks everybody for helping improve the little substub I started, great work.

I was surprised to see the reference I cited to Turban et al. and its 13% estimate replaced with the 8% high estimate the USTS report. I dug into both sources and it's funny, because those 8%/13% numbers actually come from the same study, the 2015 USTS survey. I did a a little original research (just for Talk, don't worry) and the 8% figure in the report appears to come from 2,242 answering yes to detransition/27,715 total participants (8.09%), whereas Turban excludes the 10,564 participants who reported never transitioning in the first place, leaving 2,242 of the 17,151 participants who had ever "pursued gender affirmation, broadly defined" (13.07%).

So both figures are from the same set of data, interpreted differently. The Turban study though certainly isn't outdated, though, nor is citing a reliable source's findings "harmful." Turban is a peer-reviewed data analysis in a medical journal, whereas the USTS report is more of a public-consumption survey report from an advocacy organization. I think we adequately acknowledge in the text that survey data is lacking and problematic in many ways, so to me the difference between 8% and 13% is almost moot. Respectfully, however, I'm going to restore the Turban study to the article because it seems to be one of the best, most recent, and most authoritative sources available. Totally support changing the article if other, equally rigorous sources significantly contradict.

I agree with User:Atomic putty? Rien!, we should probably try to harmonize this subsection with Detransition and speak with the same voice on both pages. I also like what User:Theheezy said about WP:DUE, I think we should keep the section here to 1-2 paragraphs and expand more on specifics in the main article. Kane5187 (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I made a bunch of edits aimed at clarifying some data discussed above and boosting readability and organization. The middle paragraph could use some ref tags to direct the reader to the sources. Kane5187 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey there User:Kane5187, thank you so much for sorting out the sources! I totally agree that it's important to represent the numbers consistently throughout the encyclopedia. And thank you as well for tidying it up-- it's much more readable now!!

P.S. I think I interpreted the higher figure as 'old' because there was an additional citation from ~2010, and I saw that the 8% figure came from a recent article-- feels sort of silly now, considering that they both originated from the same publication..

P.P.S. I'm going to scout around a bit and see if I can find a few more current publications to reference! :)) Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it might be best to copy content and sources from the main Detransition article as they currently are, and then have a discussion on adding additional sources to that article on its talk page as that is the article where those citations would be most relevant. The content here should be no more than a summary of the content there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Further on the "copy content and sources" approach, is to simply excerpt the material for starters. Here is what two lines of wikicode would look like in the § Detransition section in this article:

Click show to view proposed "excerpted" Detransition section

Detransition This section is an excerpt from Detransition.[edit] Detransition is the cessation or reversal of a transgender identification or of gender transition, temporarily or permanently, through social, legal, and/or medical means. The term is distinct from the concept of 'regret', and the decision may be based on a shift in gender identity, or other reasons, such as health concerns, social or economic pressure, discrimination, stigma, political beliefs, or religious beliefs. Some studies use the term retransition rather than detransition. Retransition is also commonly used to describe the resumption of transition or transgender identity following a detransition. The estimated prevalence of detransition varies depending on definitions and methodology, with estimates ranging from 1% to 8%. A 2018 review on the outcomes of gender transition found a large majority of data showing positive outcomes, a few reports of neutral outcomes or null results, and no studies which reported that gender transition causes overall harm. Although some studies cite a range up to 8%, this combines 3% of survey respondents who had de-transitioned at the time of the survey, along with 5% who had temporarily done so in the past. Different methodological limitations afflict studies reporting low and high incidence. Formal studies of detransition have been few in number, politically controversial, and inconsistent in the way they characterize the phenomenon. Professional interest in the phenomenon has been met with contention, and some scholars have argued there is censorship around the topic. Some ex-detransitioners regret detransitioning and choose to retransition later. Some organizations with ties to conversion therapy have used detransition narratives to push transphobic rhetoric and legislation. (references shown here would appear with the rest of the citations at the bottom of the article) References

This definitely solves the outdated issue, as well as divergence (present and future) and may be a good enough solution. Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that'd work. For some reason I thought those templates were all broken, per the note and related Phabricator bug at Template:Section. But if the excerpt template is working this would solve that issue neatly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New section to Scientific Studies (redux)

This section is a follow-up to this archived discussion on the topic.

Hey Politanvm, I think you are getting primary sources and "no riginal research" confused. This paper is not original research. I had nothing to do with the paper. I am not affiliated with the Univerisyt of Virignia and I don't know anyone who worked on the paper. Wikipedia says both primary and seconadry sources are good, but primary sources should be used if they came directly from the sources they cite. This paper cites many, many sources therefore making it both a secondary source that says reincarnation is real (as it cites many papers saying so) but also a primary source saying children with gender dyshporia tend to have past-life memories of the opposite sex. I am probably going to make a section on the "Reincarnation" page titled "Reincarnation and Gender Dysphoria" as I'm pretty sure this idea isn't new in places like India where they have believed in reincarnation for thousands of years and have the third gender Hijra. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Restoring LightProof's comment above, originally removed in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the extra reply! Thanks for restoring, Mathglot. Politanvm ^talk 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagging a few people who participated in the original discussion: @Dronebogus, @Equivamp, @CaptainEek.

My main point on the original thread was just about being mindful of primary vs. secondary sources, rather than flagging original research. I haven't closely read the paper, but taking what you've said at face value, I'd still agree with some of the points the above tagged folks made:

• Stating that "reincarnation is real" is WP:FRINGE, and needs more than one secondary source to claim that it's true.
• If there is a connection between reincarnation and gender identity, that would require much more than this single primary source.
• Without multiple reliable secondary sources connecting gender and reincarnation, it feels like an attempt to promote the idea that reincarnation exists on a very loosely related article.

I don't have many thoughts about whether this belongs at Reincarnation, but I'd expect if you add claims that reincarnation is factual and exists, that watchers of that article would likely disagree. That article is pretty clear that it's a philosophical and religious concept, not a scientific one. Best, Politanvm ^talk 16:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said previously: The only way this could be included is if you found a different source that said that some cultural practices believe trans folks are reincarnated. But we would be careful to note it is a sincerely held cultural belief, not a possible scientific answer. Otherwise you are on a very futile quest. We could not possibly claim it as scientific. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for 2015 U.S. Survey

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey collected responses from 27,715 individuals who identified as "transgender, trans, genderqueer, [or] non-binary".[94] 13.1% of respondents who had pursued gender affirmation said they had ever detransitioned, even temporarily. Detransition was associated with assigned male sex at birth, nonbinary gender identity, and bisexual orientation, among other cohorts.[123]

There is apparent confusion (I don't know if I'm the only one who is perplexed) about the use of the word "ever" in the second sentence above. The source says "participants in the above survey reported that they had ever detransitioned, (not) even temporarily" I suppose the correct word is never. The sentence is also probably missing the word not before "even temporarily". I also think the correct word can be verified only from the author(s) of the publication who wrote that particular sentence, who will need to be contacted for doing so, which is one solution I propose. I request for alternative solutions to be provided below. Looking forward for consensus. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 12:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What? I don't see the text you have placed in quotation marks within the source you linked. The top line result from the study is that A total of 17,151 (61.9%) participants reported that they had ever pursued gender affirmation, broadly defined. Of these, 2242 (13.1%) reported a history of detransition - and it is explained in the rest of the paper that such a "history of detransition" reflects a range of possibilities including temporarily returning to a prior gender expression when visiting relatives, discontinuing gender-affirming hormones, or having a new stable gender identity. So I think this is the finding underlying the WP article text's "even temporarily", but is the meaning now clear to you, at least? Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: The text I placed in quotation marks is present in the article at the section Transgender § Detransition. The meaning of the latter part of sentence is now clear to me, but I'm still perplexed about the use of the word ever here. Did those participants ever detransition? Or is this just a typo? —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 16:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

13.1% of the participants who said they had ever pursued gender affirmation said that they had (even temporarily) detransitioned at least once. This is my understanding of the article.  Tewdar  18:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

wording in definition of "TERFs"

believe vs. accept

I changed the definition to "Self-proclaimed feminists who do not believe [instead of accept] that trans women are women have been labeled "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" (TERFs) or gender-critical feminists." Being opposed to that change, and reverting it, as @Sideswipe9th did, is only possible if it were a fact that trans women are women. That is neither the consensus in the concerning scientific fields, stated anywhere in this article, nor the case when we look at the wikipedia article of woman. The actual reason for the revert is wikihounding, but in order to prevent edit warring, I thought I'd bring it up here. It is a shame that one has to discuss such a change, but @Sideswipe9th has hereby reached her goal

self-proclaimed feminism

But even the fact, that the wording is "self-proclaimed feminists" instead of "feminists", as if there were some sort of entity that can decide who is or isn't a feminist, shows the lack of neutrality and partisanship of this article. It is similar to labeling a trans woman "self-proclaimed woman". (That label actually describes the matter at hand... I'd still oppose the wording, because it indicates partisanship of the author). Feminism is an incredibly heterogeneous movement, including opposing and hostile subtypes. The wording of "Self-proclaimed feminist" either means that there is an entity, able to decide who is and isn't a feminist, or that the author is part of one feminism subtype that is hostile towards TERF. Taramalan (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Comment struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE by Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"Accept" is fine. It doesn't carry the implications you think it does. "Self proclaimed" was, I think, added by CaptainEek in this self-proclaimed "rewrite" 😁 of the feminism section around 6 months ago, and has since been modified by other editors, including the addition of a hyphen. This being the case, it will probably require an RfC attended by a supermajority of the Wikipedia community to remove it.  Tewdar  11:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The status quo wording seems fine to me as well. If anybody has any better suggestions for "self-proclaimed" then maybe that can be discussed but not without an actual specific proposal and a proper rationale. The kvetching above is more off-topic than on.

I'll also add that this is absolutely not the correct place to be making wild accusations against named editors and risks falling foul of WP:NPA. This belongs on the Administrators Noticeboards if it is actually justified, which it doesn't seem to be. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Sorry, what "kvetching" and "wild accusations"?  Tewdar  13:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. That wasn't aimed at you. I was referring to the unsupported claims and accusations of Wikihounding in the OP. DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Good job I didn't hit "publish" until I read that, then. 😂  Tewdar  13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar heh forgot I wrote that language. I guess I'll self-proclaim myself as correct :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: "...self-proclaim myself as correct" - I didn't know we could do that! This article is about to get a whole bunch of hitherto unpublished new theories added to it! 😁👍  Tewdar  17:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We should drop the "self-proclaimed". It's not in either source, and we don't do this for other ideological divisions - imagine if an article said "self-proclaimed Christians" or "self-proclaimed socialists". The latter source just calls them "gender-critical feminists" without commentary. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree we need to remove the "self-proclaimed". It's editorialization, suggesting to the reader that those feminists are not "real" feminists. The term "self-proclaimed" should only be used when the evidence clearly suggests the opposite of the proclamation (e.g., Uri Geller is a self-proclaimed psychic). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I really don't mind either way. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Taramalan was blocked per WP:NOTHERE, not for sock puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging Transexual into Transgender. I think the content in Transexual can easily be explained in the context of Transgender, and Transexual is an outdated term for Transgender individuals, and is sometimes seen as offensive, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Transgender.TheCessnaPilot (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – on size alone, a merge would generate 85,879b of prose (tg=49,830, ts=36,049), which is in "probably should be split" territory. (The total would likely be less, after duplicate material was removed.) Apart from that, they are not the same thing: transgender is an umbrella term that encompasses many things, including transsexual, which is more narrowly defined. Why choose to merge only Transsexual, and not Non-binary, Third gender, Hijra, and Kathoey for example? This seems to me a kind of arbitrary choice of articles to merge into Transgender, primarily based on the misapprehension that they are the same thing, and that one is the newer term for the other. That is an incorrect understanding of the terms. Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Transsexual and Transgender are quite simply articles with different scopes. It would be inappropriate to merge them because of this. I also agree with Mathglot that this merger would put the proposed merged article into WP:SIZESPLIT territory, even after removing duplicate content and sourcing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with everything Mathglot had to say. Transgender as a term includes transsexual, its best to have a page to directly explain what being a transsexual person is. And how that differs from the much wider umbrella term of Transgender. And what Mathglot said, if we do this, would we now merge Non-binary, Third gender, Hijra, ect and get rid of their separate page? Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, Transgender is about gender and Transexual is about sex. They aren't the same. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SNOW; very definitely not the same, should just be closed immediately. Dronebogus (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Criticism section

OP blocked, unanimously rejected WP:SEALIONing attempt Dronebogus (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Is a criticism section warranted on this article? Particularly about transitioning for minors, transgender people partaking of competitive sports as their claimed gender, whether or not transgender people are the gender they state they are, the meanings of the words man and woman, etc? As well as public opinion on these issues in countries where data is available. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 12:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC) It would be too long if every minor opinion were listed. There is no criticism section at Heterosexuality --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC) There being no criticism section at Heterosexuality is not relevant here. WP:OTHERCONTENT Additionally, how can you say it would be too long? Are you suggesting it can only be written about at considerable length? -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 13:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure that a Criticism section is the best approach, but there's a lot of criticism-adjacent content that is surprisingly missing from this article. I'd expect to see a couple lines at least on deadnaming, misgendering, sports, the anti-gender movement, and trans-exclusive beliefs/advocacy/policy outside of feminism (the only place it's mentioned). Many of these have their own articles which could be succinctly summarized and linked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC) “Criticism” is wrong. Trans people exist; you can no more criticize them for existing than you can with gay people. There is “controversy” (i.e. people arguing against the level of inclusion trans people should be allowed in traditional gender-related areas) or simple bigotry (i.e. denialism, misgendering and just insulting people for being trans). Dronebogus (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC) That. The article has a "discrimination" section, it doesn't need a "criticism" section separate from "discrimination". --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Criticism of the concept of transgenderism and the transgender movement deserves a mention, does it not? Filing that under 'discrimination' is inappropriate. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 15:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC) No one is denying transgender people exist. This article does not detail transgender people; it details transgenderism. I think a section on the matters I raised above is warranted, because alleging concerns over competitive sports and minors transitioning cannot be classed as discrimination. Additionally, what you allege to be bigotry is not relevant here. Maybe criticism is not the most apt term. What do you think? -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 15:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC) No, the topic of this article is not transgenderism, which is simply a culture war buzzword. That said, while "Controversies" sections are generally discouraged on enwiki, they are not forbidden, and one may be appropriate here (if only to provide summaries of and links to articles that discuss Notable controversies). There is something a bit Whiggish about the way this article currently presents the "march of history", IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Please don't accuse another editor of engaging in a "culture war". The word is neutral and you understand what I meant. That's how language works. https://www.lexico.com/definition/transgenderism We should come up with an appropriate title if we're to agree there should be a section about this. I can certainly agree with you on your last point. I'm not assuming editorial bias, but the language used in the 'Events' section sounds like the kind of language I'd use if I wanted to promote the subject without explicitly saying so. I might take a crack at rewriting it. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 15:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Ummm, "Transgenderism" is not a neutral term (if it ever was). I just did a Google search for "transgenderism" culture war and the only hits published since 2014 were from conservative media outlets. Pretty much the paradigm case of a buzzword of the right. You may not have meant the word in that sense, but that is the sense it which it will be read in 2022. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC) I'd appreciate if your replies covered the matter at hand. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 15:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC) The language we use to discuss the topic is part of the matter at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC) And the language I'm using is perfectly acceptable, recognised when one searches on Google for its definition. Wikipedia is not censored; neither are appropriate and commonly used words. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 17:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Transgenderism is not a commonly used word. While there is a minority usage within some academia; International Journal of Transgender Health's prior name was International Journal of Transgenderism, current contemporary usage is primarily from religious right-wing anti-trans individuals and has similar connotations to the gay agenda of old. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Adam, insisting on your right to use dogwhistle language is not going to contribute to any changes you might want in article space. I suggest that you put down the shibboleth. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC) What term should I use in lieu? -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 19:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC) If you mean "transgender activism", say that. If you mean "transgender recognition" or "transgender accommodation", say that. And if you mean "transgender people", say that. Be specific. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC) While most dictionaries don’t consider “transgenderism” to be any more than a synonym for “transgender” (what is usually called “transness” within the queer community) in practice it’s usually a derogatory dog-whistle for the “ideology” of transgender acceptance. Dronebogus (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Unimportant. Please respond to my other points. (Nevermind -- replied to the wrong person) -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 15:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC) How about not being rude in the first place? Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Lets see if we can restore peace and get back on track. How about this? "Transgenderism" is a dogwhistle phrase that is bandied about a lot. The trouble is that not everybody recognises it as a dogwhistle. It can be used in good faith by people who don't recognise it for what it is. You see the same thing with people who write "trans woman" as a single word. Some are deliberately being offensive but others are just unaware of the implications of writing it that way. We can all make mistakes like this. For example, I only recently learned that it is bad to hyphenate "antisemitism" (because that implies that "semitism" is a thing). So, how about we accept that Adam was using "Transgenderism" in mistaken good faith up until now and he stops using it from now on, now that he knows that it is a dogwhistle phrase and is absolutely not a real thing distinct from transgender people just being trans? DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) I believe that criticism is found at other articles, such as Anti-gender movement and TERF (plus Gender-critical). Transphobia may also have content on it. See Transgender#Discrimination — Tazuco ✉️ 15:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Ctrl + F searching "minor" "sports" and "transition" suggests those pages contain nothing of the sort, excluding Feminist views on transgender topics which details the sports issue, but contains no material other than reporting organisations which support the topic, thus being arguably unbalanced. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 15:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Having a criticism section on transitioning for minors, transgender people partaking of competitive sports as their claimed gender, whether or not transgender people are the gender they state they are, the meanings of the words man and woman would be very close to giving undue weight to fringe content. In addition some of that content is already covered on other, more specific articles; Transgender youth, Transgender people in sports, Gender identity, Gender expression, etc, where the space of a full article can allow for a more nuanced and focused delivery of the content. Also, while I recognise that WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:OTHERSTUFF essays say that these are arguments to avoid, nonetheless we do not have criticism sections in Cisgender, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Homosexuality for a very good reason; alluded to in WP:CSECTION and WP:CONTROVERSY essays. As Dronebogus said above Trans people exist; you can no more criticize them for existing than you can with gay people. Almost all of the sections proposed by DeaconShotFire are talking points in the media, used to denigrate and discriminate against trans and non-binary people as part of a culture war, and typically done so in a way that is either ignorant of or completely ignores current research consensus on those various topics. Because of this, it would be very difficult to cover that content in the level of detail necessary in this article to avoid WP:NPOV issues. That said, I tentatively agree with Firefangledfeathers point above, and wonder if we could adapt a summary style of the leads of those more specific articles in a contextually appropriate manner. Note, just for clarity sake as it's already come up once in this discussion. I am not saying that any editor here is engaging in the culture war. I'm saying that the proposed content sections are inherently culture war adjacent, and present great difficulty to cover in sufficient detail in this article as required by WP:NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) I'm interested to hear what makes you allege this as 'almost fringe content'. Additionally, simply because it's covered in more detail here doesn't mean it should be totally absent in the article literally titled 'Transgender'. "Almost all of the sections proposed by DeaconShotFire are talking points in the media, used to denigrate and discriminate against trans and non-binary people as part of a culture war, and typically done so in a way that is either ignorant of or completely ignores current research consensus on those various topics." Can you prove this? Covering genuine concerns espoused by athletes themselves--as reported by the BBC--and people such as sports scientist Ross Tucker is somehow giving way to fringe content that could not reasonably be covered without violating WP:NPOV? -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 16:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC) The article on this topic is Transgender people in sports. While it would be appropriate to summarize those controversies here, it would not be appropriate to create a WP:POVFORK. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC) I'm happy to familiarise myself with that article. I would agree to a section on this page summarising the contents of the articles discussed here; would you? I can't imagine it would be appropriate to file it under 'discrimination'. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 16:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC) I'm interested to hear what makes you allege this as 'almost fringe content'. This is explained in detail at each of the articles I linked above. However the TLDR; version is that concerns over trans youth healthcare, trans people in sport, and whether gender identity is real overwhelmingly run counter to the rather substantial academic consensus on these topics. Can you prove this? Already proven at the articles linked above. Covering genuine concerns espoused by athletes themselves covered in detail in the transgender people in sports article, however those concerns are a minority viewpoint. somehow giving way to fringe content that could not reasonably be covered without violating WP:NPOV That is not what I said. I said that it would be difficult to cover this content in the level of detail necessary in this article to avoid NPOV issues. All of these topics, not just trans people in sports, are incredibly nuanced. The trans exclusionary perspectives, while loud, are still a minority within each of those topics. Great care needs to be taken when including content from those articles, to avoid violating NPOV by giving undue prominence to the respective minority viewpoints. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia is generally opposed to criticism sections (Wikipedia:Criticism). They are the bane of many an article and don't help with neutrality: they just attract POV warring. For the most part, any legitimate criticism should be incorporated into the article at sensible points, or otherwise put in sections that are specifically named for the issue at hand. So I could see including some material under "Discrimination", or perhaps under a "Public reception" section (though I admit I don't like that idea much). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Offensive word

In the above talk section, Criticism section, it appears that the word "transgenderism" is considered an offensive word. You might want to clarify that in the article since the word appears 11 times on the article page with no suggestion that it is offensive. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It has become a transphobic dog whistle to use that term recently however I'm not sure that the term was always as offensive as it is now. The majority of the uses of the term in the article are direct quotations or the names of journals, so we can't change those. However I do appreciate that it might seem a bit jarring for it to be in the article and we should not be using it in Wikipedia's own voice. I have modified the one place where we were doing that. I agree that it might be good to very briefly mention that the term is archaic if a suitable reliable source can be found to support that. DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a ref that you might find useful and it includes more refs. In this Wikipedia article there are references to the International Journal of Transgenderism. That journal changed its name in 2020 and explained the change. See the fifth paragraph at [3].

"Thirdly, IJT has been renamed International Journal of Transgender Health (IJTH) to reflect a change toward more appropriate and acceptable use of language in our field. The last decade in particular has seen a significant and positive progression in this area, particularly with regard to health care. Indeed, the language used in this field has been in an almost constant state of redefinition and refinement, with new terms discarded, old ones reclaimed (Meier & Labuski, 2013; Wylie, 2015), and new language proposed (Ansara & Hegarty, 2012; Moser & Devereux, 2019) according to the degree to which it embraces a respectful, nonpathologizing, human rights–based perspective (Bouman et al., 2017)."

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit corresponding to the above. [4] Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2022

Remove Transgender pornography from the See also section. It's kind of a weird thing to link and the equivalents aren't included on the Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual pages as far as I can tell. UniformLimit (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary Paragraph

4th paragraph in the introductory section feels unneeded. Maybe it could be moved to a different section? JintheBoxOfKILL (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What feels unneeded about it? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like an unneeded addition when there is a section specifically made to detail discrimination and an article for transphobia. The size of the paragraph also makes it come off as random because it feels like it should be elaborated on, except that elaborating on it would essentially null the discrimination section of the article if the paragraph was kept in the introduction.

It doesn't come across as unneeded for the article as a whole (I probably should've clarified that in the original post, sorry), it's just that the placement of it is awkward and it could probably be expanded upon in the discrimination section. JintheBoxOfKILL (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Its a bit short yes, but I wouldn't say the lead is close to finished. In part, because the body needs a lot of work. Then once the body is more fleshed out, the lead can be a more accurate summary of it. But for the moment, the lead does summarize what is there. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Correlation between transphobic cis women and internalized misogyny?

Has there been made some study on this? I think that there is some kind of connection between the two and I suppose that this paradoxically explains TERFism. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello! This talk page is not a forum for discussing or speculating on this topic or related topics. If such a study exists, you might have better luck asking at the Reference Desk (Humanities), or searching for keywords in Google Scholar. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Previous consensus was that “criticism” sections for demographics is patently ridiculous, and I see no reason to change that; there are numerous individual topics where controversies involving trans people are notable, but this isn’t where to put them. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledging the previous attempt to start this discussion, this article would really benefit from a comprehensive "Criticism" section. Transgenderism represents an individual's perception of themselves detaching from reality, more in the article should really highlight this aspect, and related criticism of it. Both in this talk section (under the previous topic of the same name) and in the article, constant comparisons are made between transsexuality and homo/heterosexuality as if they are congruent when they are fundamentally different, the latter being sexual preferences, the former being a matter of identity. Not being merely a sexual preference, but a highly controversial matter of identity in which one is attempting to convince themselves and others they are a certain gender, should be reflected in the article; especially given the broad criticism transgenderism has been met with on a plethora of issues, from issues of compelled speech to competitiveness in sports. Redirecting people to other articles is not only self-defeating since it requires loading an entire new article, but the term "transphobia" carries highly negative connotations which undermine the legitimacy of said criticism, and focuses more on attacks and discrimination. Barring the addition of a new section, more should be done to include these notions organically. I also echo earlier sentiments of Whig history being pervasive in this article. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC) The answer to this hasn't changed since the last discussion above. Per the essay Wikipedia:Criticism we generally do not include dedicated criticism or controversy sections within articles. They are incredibly difficult to balance with respect to the WP:NPOV policy, and are frequently a magnet for disruptive or POV editing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC) And per Wikipedia:Criticism criticism sections are not prohibited, to the contrary, they are found in innumerable article both high-traffic and not. They provide valuable insight into nuanced, controversial subjects. Furthermore it seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV to have an entire article written in a Whiggish tone, with dedicated sections to "Feminism" and it's interpretations of transgenderism, as well as "Discrimination", but not criticism. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC) What reliable sources support the apparent caricature that underlies your use of the dog-whistle term "transgenderism" here? Wikipedia relies on reliable sources of the highest available quality, not culture war screeds op-ed material. Newimpartial (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC) The request here is incomprehensible word salad. It is both confusing and confused. I have no idea what the allegation of "Whiggish tone" even means. (Googling the phrase doesn't help and Wiktionary's definition of whiggish provides a definition that doesn't have any clear relevance to the tone of this article.) If it were not for other editors having already replied, trying to make sense of it, I would have simply rolled the section up as incoherent nonsense. I'll just add that this is an article about a human demographic group. As such, it would be spectacularly inappropriate to add a "Criticism" section. Far from being an article where Wikipedia:Criticism might not apply, it is exactly the type of article where it is most crucial that it be applied. I can't imagine any other article about a demographic group where we would have a criticism section. We don't have a "Criticism" section in French people for people to enumerate their prejudices against the French. To suggest that we should have the equivalent here is to suggest that transgender people are less worthy of consideration than other demographics. That's not something that merits discussion. DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC) I agree with DanielRigal. It would make no sense to have a criticism section for an article about a demographic group. It would just end up being a section of offensive transphobic opinions (like those expressed by BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 above). Nosferattus (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Disallowing criticism is no different from a cargo cult, or worse, I thought wikipedia is supposed to be better than that. There are many valid objections to gender ideology such as recognizing the fact children cannot diagnose themselves with 'gender dysphoria' and consent to puberty blockers (i.e. chemical castration). The criticism of child mutilation of minors that is currently happening in 'gender affirming' clinics. The criticism by feminist groups in regards to violation of women rights by "trans" identifying biological males invading women-only spaces. The unethical blackmailing of parents by 'gender affirming' clinics to sign letter of consent on their kids transitioning. The testimony from the growing wave of detransitioners. The current legislative effort to ban the "gender affirming" practice in Europe and US. The rejection of gender exploratory model in favor of affirmation-only model and so on. The current version of article is very far from neutral opinion and looks more like a page curated by transgender ideologists and 'allies'. 2601:645:4300:AAF0:A8C6:DBB3:39FD:7C5F (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTFORUM and feel free not to tell us what you think about it. DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't the place for diatribes about minority groups. Try Conservapedia; I'm sure they'd be more than willing to entertain you. Dricoust (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia is about evidence-based information, not political opinions. Closing your eyes on the valid criticism and the growing evidence of harm done by "gender affirming" child mutilation is unethical and violates Wikipedia terms of service. My recommendation is to add Criticism section citing credible sources, otherwise mark this page for deletion. 2601:645:4300:AAF0:2420:BA0:E466:3024 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Thanks for your recommendation. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing in first sentence

L'Mainer recently rewrote the first sentence as follows:

−

'''Transgender''' people have a [[gender identity]] or [[gender expression]] that differs from the [[sex]] that they were [[sex assigned at birth|assigned at birth]].

+

'''Transgender''' people are individuals who [[gender expression|express]] or have a [[gender identity]] that differs from the [[sex]] they were [[sex assigned at birth|assigned at birth]].

Newimpartial subsequently reverted the change, and I agree with their reasoning. Gender expression is the expression of gender, not of identity, so "express or have a gender identity" is not equivalent to "have a gender identity or gender expression". The existing phrase here is correct, and in my opinion clearer. For the record, I don't have anything for or against changing ...have... to ...are individuals who have... –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I will respond later, I need some Zs. L'Mainer (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Concerning your second edit summary, L'Manier, making gender expression a subordinate concept (or subset) in relation to gender identity wouldn't be any appropriate than treating them as coterminous - and those are the only two readings that come to mind for me, for your proposed lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The recent revisions of the entirety of the 1st para by Rosedaler, is a rewrite I am happy with, and agree with, I no longer want to push my revision exact. L'Mainerque (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I can see what L'Mainer was going for here but I also see the objection, subtle and easy to miss though it is. I agree with L'Mainer that it would be an improvement to start with "Transgender people are...". I believe that every article should start with a simple defining sentence of the form "(subject) is/are/was/were (description)" so that even people who only read the very first sentence get something out of the article. I'm thinking along the lines of "Transgender people are people with a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.". I'm not sure whether "with" or "who have" is best. I'm also not sure about the repetition of "people". Maybe the second one could the "those" or "individuals". Anyway, I'm sure that there is scope for an improved wording here. DanielRigal (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

While I reverted for the reason I stated in the edit, I also do not share the preference for are statements in the first sentence of the lead, in all cases. I think have statements work equally well (or better) to define the respective topics, in some cases. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ping @DanielRigal, Newimpartial, L'Mainerque, and Rosedaler: I slightly prefer the simpler Transgender people have... over Transgender people are people who have, because the latter is phrased as a definition of transgender person or transgender people, not of the term Transgender. The ultimate cause of this conundrum is that the MOS advises that article titles use nouns instead, but transgender doesn't have an unambiguous or common noun form.

After pondering the alternatives for a bit, I think we should follow our sources, and the example set by Non-binary, and open with Transgender is an umbrella term for.... This is technically WP:IAR to WP:ISATERMFOR, as this isn't a "dictionary article", but it does cleanly resolve the conundrum created by using the adjective Transgender as the title, and a substantial number of sources on the subject emphasize transgender first and foremost as an umbrella term.

Thoughts? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support the IAR "is an umbrella term for people..." as a first choice, and "Transgender people have" as a second choice. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

In principle it's a perfectly acceptable sentence without having to resort to IAR, but for a different article, not this one. At least, not without recasting it as an article about a term. Roxy, I think you rather had it right the first time, in preferring a definition of transgender person or people, and not a definition of the term, and the reason lies in the second sentence of WP:AT. An article about either subject (people, term) would be a perfectly valid topic (we could easily have both), but the topics are not at all the same, and the lead sentence should reflect what *this* article is about.

This article is clearly about the people involved: their identities, history, community, health, rights, law and so on, and not mostly about the term. There *are* a few articles about terms: LGBT is one of them, as the initial sentence and the rest of the lead make very clear. If we start this article off with "Transgender is an umbrella term for..." it starts the article off wrong-footed, and tells the reader we are going this-a-way, when actually we are going that-a-way, but ha-ha, we're not gonna tell you that until you finish reading the rest of the lead paragraph. I think that formulation as a lead sentence is totally out of bounds for this article as a lead sentence, but perfectly fine as the first sentence of the § Terminology section, where it would improve the section by adding it. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed completely. This is an article about a demographic group, not an "umbrella term". Crossroads ^-talk- 06:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that this was the case, and that this version of the lede would be explicitly flouting Wikipedia’s typical binary between “articles about words” vs. “articles about things”. My point being the article already does so, because transgender is a word, not a thing. This would be following the precedent set by Non-binary gender, (another article about a gender or group of genders), but still finds it necessary to begin by saying that Non-binary is an umbrella term.

Barring all that (consensus here seems to favor Transgender people have a gender identity…) , should we then consider renaming the article itself to Transgender people, like we have Gay men? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: if no major objections, I would add to that, Transgender or trans people have…. Trans meaning for transgender (of which transsexual is a subset) now seems standard and common enough to treat the two as simple synonyms, although I don’t currently have the time to pull a bunch of dictionaries to back that up. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Poorly sourced statements in the lead

The source https://www.britannica.com/topic/transgender has only two uses in this article. Both of them are in the lead, and both of them are only used to push the idea that there is no agreed upon definition of transgender. My two cents:

• Encyclopedia Britannica is a weak tertiary source that should not be used in the lead of such an important Wiki article.
• The claim itself is likely too contentious to be justified by a tertiary source.

I propose removing the claims and the source as-is. If a better source can be found, the digression will still likely belong somewhere outside of the lead. 2001:4998:EF60:9:0:0:0:113F (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation here, so I've gone ahead and made this change, which deletes the sentence reading "The term does not have a universally accepted definition, including among researchers.", as it's just not especially useful or informative (we don't explain much more detail about these definitions, except maybe whether cis-identifying cross-dressers are "transgender"). Also, Britannica is not, in my experience, an exceptionally reliable source for trans topics. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion

Any input would be appreciated at: Talk:Sex reassignment surgery#Requested move 23 November 2022. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Overlinked

I have tagged this article as overlinked per MOS:OL. The method of style states that only the first occurrence a term in the article should be wikilinked. I cleaned up the duplicates started in the lead. Unfortunately work calls so I couldn't clean the whole article. I will finish the job later if no one gets to it before me. BeckyAnne(talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Transvestic fetishism paragraph needs updating

I've just tagged the paragraph on "transvestic fetishism" with the {{update inline}} template. Neither of the two diagnosis codes are current with respect to the DSM-5-R and ICD-11, with the DSM-5-R seeming to use different terminology and classification and the ICD-11 omitting it entirely.

I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the second sentence in the paragraph for two reasons. For one stating that the term "is differentiated from cross-dressing by use of [diagnostic codes]" doesn't really tell the reader anything informative. Secondly, it's really pathologising over something that the DSM now considers a paraphilia and not a disorder, and that the ICD no longer recognises. When considering up to date content, do we actually need this paragraph? And if we do, what information in it should actually be conveyed to the reader? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Physical healthcare section

At present in the physical healthcare section, we have a sentence that reads The acronyms "Gender-affirming surgery (GAS)" and "sex reassignment surgery" (SRS) refer to genital surgery. which I'm not sure is accurate, especially with regards to the currently used term gender-affirming surgery, but also to a lesser degree to the older term sex reassignment surgery. It's my understanding that all surgical procedures relating to transition, and not just those limited to bottom/genital surgery, are referred to by both terms.

I'm also concerned about the subsequent sentence that reads The term "sex reassignment therapy" (SRT) is used as an umbrella term for physical procedures required for transition. as that too seems archaic and out of date. The current umbrella term for all procedures, both physical and mental, is gender-affirming care.

While we could address both of those concerns by partial rewrites to update terminology, I wonder if perhaps instead we should look at the section as a whole and figure out what information we need to convey in it. There are several other issues that are affecting that section than just archaic terminology:

• the first sentence seems to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about transgender people "not [being] known for seeking  treatments."
• the "availability of these procedures" sentence being sourced entirely to the DSM-4 and not representative of either global availability nor current availability
• the paragraph on risk of endometrial cancer seems somewhat out of place with regards to both the section that it is in. No other risks to either transmasculine or transfeminine individuals are mentioned, nor are is endometrial cancer mentioned on either the sex reassignment therapy or transgender healthcare articles. It is mentioned on the masculinizing hormone therapy article, but in a very different manner than described here.

I would suggest that, if there is a consensus to fully rewrite the section, then at minimum we should look at summarising the key points of the transgender healthcare and gender-affirming surgery articles, with scope to also check for any relevant content from the masculinizing hormone therapy, feminizing hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery (female-to-male) and gender-affirming surgery (male-to-female) articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

How old does a topic have to be before it's not considered "relatively new"?

Somewhat related to the section above on transvestic fetishism, I've also tagged a sentence in the mental healthcare section with {{update inline}}. The citation is to a book published in 1996 (27 years ago). Even if we were to accept this sole source as authoritative, and ignore the work conducted by the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft between 1919 and 1933, or the works produced by the then HBIGDA from 1979 onwards, how old does a concept need to be before we stop describing it as "relatively new"? Is just under thirty years long enough that we could rephrase this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it helps to ask Relative to what? If Egyptologists want to describe something many centuries old as "relatively new" then that makes perfect sense within the context of writing about ancient Egypt because it will be understood that the context is the relation to things much, much older than that. By contrast, half a cold kebab that has been in the fridge for just a few days is probably best not described as "relatively new".

More specifically to this case, this is a subject area where thinking has changed rapidly over the last century but not all readers may fully appreciate that. That's exactly the sort of thing that they might be reading the article to find out about. I think it is reasonable to assume that different readers will have different ideas about what "relatively new" means in this context so it is best to avoid using the phrase. It would be better to reword this in a way that tells the reader what time scale we actually mean. They can then form their own opinion as to whether that seems "relatively new" to them if they want to. DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if this might suffice, though it might need a more recent source? however, research and understanding of gender identity with regards to psychology, and scientific understanding of the topic and it's related issues has evolved rapidly over the last century (changes in italics) In addition to incorporating what you've said about understanding changing over the last century, I've also swapped the word phenomenon with the word topic, as the word has some negative connotations in this context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest simply deleting the sentence on the grounds the source is too old, and of course it can be replaced at any time with a good source along the lines mentioned of 'understanding has evolved rapidly over [period of time]". Crossroads ^-talk- 00:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

Fairly simple request to correct a factual error. It says that Hippocrates wrote about the Scythian Enarei priestesses. But that's incorrect. That writing is in the Hippocratic Corpus, which the ancients attributed to Hippocrates, but modern scholars agree it was unlikely to have been written by Hippocrates, nor was it written by a single person. Scholars say it was written by "Pseudo-Hippocrates" as a result. Perhaps a nitpick, but accuracy is important, no? Anyway, I've rewritten the offending paragraph below.

I also cleaned up the prose a bit, since it was a little awkward before.

My proposed edit is below:

The Hippocratic Corpus, a collection of ancient medical writings of unknown authorship associated with the work of Hippocrates but unlikely to have been written by him , discusses transgender individuals briefly. In particular, he writes about the Enarei (singular Enaree), a group of effeminate priests within the Scythian culture, located around the northern Black Sea. These enarei were known for their effeminacy, having dressed, spoken, and behaved like women. The Greek historian Herodotus also describes them in a similar way. The writer of the Hippocratic Corpus refers to their condition as a "disease of the Scythians", which he attributes to impotency due to riding on a horse without stirrups. Hippocrates's reference was well discussed by medical writings of the 1500s–1700s. Pierre Petit writing in 1596 viewed the "Scythian disease" as natural variation, but by the 1700s writers viewed it as a "melancholy", or "hysterical" psychiatric disease. By the early 1800s, being transgender separate from Hippocrates' idea of it was claimed to be widely known, but remained poorly documented. Both trans women and trans men were cited in European insane asylums of the early 1800s. One of the earliest recorded transgender individuals in America was Thomas(ine) Hall, a seventeenth century colonial servant. The most complete account of the time came from the life of the Chevalier d'Éon (1728–1810), a French diplomat. As cross-dressing became more widespread in the late 1800s, discussion of transgender people increased greatly and writers attempted to explain the origins of being transgender. Much study came out of Germany, and was exported to other Western audiences. Cross-dressing was seen in a pragmatic light until the late 1800s; it had previously served a satirical or disguising purpose. But in the latter half of the 1800's, cross-dressing and being transgender became viewed as an increasing societal danger.

Also, here's the additional source referenced - Cunliffe, Barry (2019). The Scythians: Nomad Warriors of the Steppe. Oxford, United Kingdom; New York City, United States: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-198-82012-3. Fuquawi (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I think your edit goes into too much detail about the Hippocratic Corpus, that can be accessed by clicking the wikilink. I've changed the subject of that sentence to be the Hippocratic Corpus. I think that's enough. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References