Talk:Transvestism/Archive 1

Archive 1

2004 Discussion

I'd appreciate if anybody would a) check this text for mistakes I did not catch, since I am not a native speaker, and b), more importantly, for understandability. It's an extremely compley subject I tried to expain there.

Also, compare against transvestite.

I wonder if this should be at transvestite (word) or similar?

---

This article looks funny. Why is it structured as such (like, with all the <br> and Today: in it)? - Mark 15:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's simple - because the text is rather long, the fat today is there to structure it a bit. And the line breaks are there to keep text together that belongs together (unlike paragraphs) without making it unreadable. There is a reason, you know, that both line breaks and paragraphs exist. -- AlexR 18:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Article title changed to "Transvestism". Merriam-Webster lists this as the correct spelling. Google gives only 6,390 hits for "transvestitism", but 45,600 hits for "transvestism". -- Kimiko 09:34, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article still says 'transvestitism' everywhere---is this is a typo, or did Magnus whatever his name is in the first paragraph actually use the word 'transvestitism', and the modern variant of that turned out to be 'transvestism'? Grendelkhan 15:33, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

Hirschfeld used transvestititsm, and the word, as the google count shows, is still in use; in fact, scientific books usually still use "transvestitism", which is why the text itself should not change. "Transvestitsm" is an English shortening of the word; and I am not at all happy with the change. A simple redirect from "transvestism" would have done perfectly. -- AlexR 19:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you for this brave attempt at explaining something I have always been confused about......and I am sorry to say, I still am. All I know is I'm straight and I love dressing up in my girlfriend's undies for sexual pleasure. As soon as it is over, I quickly get changed. So what am I? A transvestite or a cross dresser or a fetishist? User:220.237.47.197

Given the life stories of people I know, it could be about everything, including full-scale transsexualism; since many transsexual women used something like "I am just a transvestite/fetishist" as an excuse/explanation for their behaviour -- denial is not just a river in Egypt. However, that would be rather rare, I'd say, compared to those people who act like you do and never consider changing gender role. If it's just sexual pleasure, I'd tend towards transvestic fetishism, if there is anything like a temporary switch of gender role, even if one is alone, involved, I'd say cross-dressing. (Transvestite has so many contradictory meanings that is has become quite useless.) But it is often very hard to draw a line there, precisely because many people feel more comfortable believing they are "just" a fetishist instead of having to face any gender issues. (Having transitioned myself, albeit in the other direction, and having worked in counceling for years, I get the point.)

If you are confused or even disturbed by your behaviour, I recommend looking for a support group, if you are lucky, there is one in your area (try one for cross-dressers or similar; not all transsexual support groups are exactly welcoming towards non-transsexual trans*-people). Also a good therapist might help - unfortunately, they are hard to come by. There are also many online forums where you can meet people who are in exactly the same situation as you are, and communicating helps a lot. -- AlexR 7 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

NPOV

The idea that gender is "assigned" rather than an intrinsic property is a bias, and does not confirm to neutral point of view. User:71.243.30.120

Uhm, sorry, but that is the very definition of gender, that it is social, and not biological. Now, if we are talking about gender identity, that may be different (subject of much debate), but at that point, we are not. Hence, revert.

Also, kindly sign your entries next time, with -- ~~~~, and it is quite customary to first raise an issue on the talk page, and then, if no consensus can be found, put in NPOV tags. -- AlexR 07:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Alex, no consensus here. The distinction between sex and gender is not uniformly defined. It is highly controversial and the cause of much debate. Therefore idea that gender is "assigned" is indeed a bias and does not conform to neutral point of view. NPOV warning added. Also NB that I am not the original editor who originally marked this article NPOV. Rockcutter88 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with Alex, however, the Wikipedia policy of NPOV means just the opposite of your usage. NPOV implies that all views (supportable with facts and citations) should be expressed. You are suggesting that because it is biased (or that you think that it may be), that it should not be represented, and that isn't necessarily true. Editors need not gain consensus, it is only something that they should attempt to do. If an editor can support a point of view with facts, then thay can add that to the article, and others don't have to agree with the position for it to be allowable. That is to say, we aren't trying to write articles with one view that many have consensus on, we are writing articles that may have many factual views.

The current article does not have a specified POV regarding gender as far as I can tell. Atom 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues with uploading Pic for this Article

I have been informed that certain editors are either continuously attempting to add images to this article for an illustration of what Transvestites appear to be, and that other editors are deleting these images as well. I hope to end this on-going problem by simply suggesting that perhaps adding an image of a celebrated or world-recognised transvestite would be more suitable. I give the example such as the notable drag queen: Divine aka Harris Glen Milstead who featured in several films, including those of John Waters and has been recognised by the world as a prominent figure in promoting the Transvestite scene. Also another example could be the image of Tim Curry in the cult film The Rocky Horror Picture Show as Dr. Frank-N-Furter - these would be suitable examples of drag queens, even the image of Peter Burns from Dead or Alive etc... Hope this can clear up some of the issues on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piecraft (talk • contribs) 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, these picture would only enhance the stereotypes of what the public percieves "transvestites" to be and look like -- the article quite clearly states that the term is used much, much more broadly. Hence the addition of such a picture would have to be balanced by others, illustrating the other uses. I might add that there was most likely just one editor who wanted to add equally one-sided pics to this article, so this is hardly a widespread problem. -- AlexR 11:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point AlexR, however, I would not consider the drag queen Divine to be a stereotype of what the public percieves "transvestites" to be seeing as he has been recognised as a role model amongst the Transvestite community and was a dominant figure in promoting cross-dressing and Transvestitism. I would at least consider if anything placing an exemplary image of what a Transvestite appears to be, regardless of what the general public concerns are. If we provide too much in terms of relative neutrality to a subject than we would have a difficult time placing a defined explanation whether it be an image or article that follows a topic. Piecraft 12:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be useful to have photographs from cross-dressers to illustrate the incredible variety of people who are doing it, as well as the different styles of dress. The heterosexual cross-dressers generally wear women's clothing for their own enjoyment. Since many of them never go out in drag in public, they enjoy sharing pictures of themselves. Because of copyright concerns, it would be important for them to release their photos to the public domain. The incredible website www.pettipond.com has a number examples of cross-dressers who have submitted color photographs, so it's clear that there is great variety among the cross-dressers.Sallyrob 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's not really that important for this article to have a picture, because this article is about the history and use of the word, rather than cross-dressing itself, which is covered at Cross-dressing, and I'd say that pictures are better handled in that article. Talking of pictures - I can't help noticing that the current picture, whilst it is reasonably "A male dressed as a female.", only shows the tiniest amount of female clothing in the picture... Mdwh (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal given names in Germany

Today, I changed the wording

Hirschfeld helped people to achieve the very first name changes (as first names had and have to be gender specific in Germany)

so that it instead read

Hirschfeld helped people to achieve the very first name changes (legal given names were and are required to be sexually distinct in Germany)

Alex R then changed it to this:

Hirschfeld helped people to achieve the very first name changes (legal given names were and are required to be gender specific in Germany)

My understanding is that, when a baby gets its name in Germany, the law requires the name to match the baby's biological sex. I think that this sex is determined on the basis of anatomy, not chromosomes: it is independent of gender roles, but is specifically about anatomical sex. If this is how the law is there, then the law requires sexual distinction of names—or sexual specificity—, but not gender specificity.

What are the details of this German law? I think those details would determine the best wording. I would accept "sex-specific"; but "gender-specific" I would accept only if, for example, the law worked like "Ah, I see: your newborn child has a penis and testes, and no female genitalia; but you intend to raise this child to act and dress femininely. You may give the child a feminine name, then."

Thoughts?

President Lethe 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How about facts instead of thoughts? The first name in Germany has to be gender specific because it has to match the entry of "m" or "f" in the birth certificate, something that is called legal gender. It is not sex-specific insofar, as that in any cases of doubt, doctors get to decide which letter goes in there -- and as the history (and unfortunately, the present, too) of intersex people shows that there are lots of factors in that decision, and a childs "true sex" is not always the first among them. That is, insofar as a "true sex" can be determined at all, which is decidedly questionable in many cases. Hence the law that regulates those things has a provision for intersex people that they can change that legal gender, without any medical procedures which are often (and incorrectly) called "sex change". Since, therefore, it is not necessarily coupled with "sex", it is "gender", hence gender-specific.

Since 1980, there is a law regulating the name change and change of legal gender for transsexual people, however, this is not relevant to that paragraph, since it was long before Hirschfeld's time. Guess what, though - the very existance of this law again makes it clear that the first name has to match the legal gender, and well, if it is just a legal thing, it is obviously gender, not sex. The one explicit exception are people who just change their first name, but not (yet or permantly) their legal gender. Given that this is stated very explicitly as an exception, the rule is obviously matching "m" of "f" entry with name, not any sex-determining factors. Which, BTW, is the way things are handled not just in Germany, but all countries where the Code Napoleon was the basis of law. -- AlexR 10:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To the opening question: I asked "What are the details of this German law?", which was a request for facts. I asked for thoughts on the facts. You seem to have given some facts as well as your thoughts on them. Thanks!

Explained in more detail, your gender wording makes sense to me. I'll add the hyphen.

President Lethe 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if we need legal gender or something similar. We have Legal aspects of transsexualism, but that is not quite the same thing. -- AlexR 16:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jokes about transvestites

I've committed myself to being best man at a transvestite wedding. Oh God. Has anyone got any good transvestite jokes? Websites? I am Shtove 19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a joke might not be appropriate... Mugaliens 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit

I removed "homosexuality" from the sentance which claimed that homosexuality is associated with transvestism. In fact, there's less incidence of transvestism among gays and lesbians than throughout the general public, and most gay men aren't into drag queens. Mugaliens 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was badly worded. I don't think it meant to say that homosexuality was correlated with people who cross-dress (just as cross-dressing doesn't imply fetishism or transsexualism, either). I think it's saying that these concepts are nonetheless associated with the word by people (even if it isn't true) - remember, this is an article primarily about the word "transvestite", not people who cross-dress. I'll try to reword it. Mdwh 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that better? Also compare with "transvestite behaviour ... was until the 1960s seen an expression of homosexuality or suppressed homosexual impulses." - even though here also, people who cross-dress weren't necessarily homosexual. Mdwh 15:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the historical stats reveal, but the current surveys reveal that more than 90% of all crossdressers are heterosexual. Most remain married, with families, understanding wives, etc. The earlier accounts were largely based on supposition by the "experts," who've since been proven horribly wrong by detailed statistical sampling of the individuals in question. Mugaliens 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I am confused. The opening sentence of this article is, "The term transvestism has undergone several changes of meaning since it was coined in the 1910s, and it is still used in all of these meanings except the very first one." However, as far as I can tell from the article, the very first meaning of the term was dressing in the clothing of the opposite sex. It doesn't mean that any more? What does it mean if it doesn't mean that? What are the other meanings? I've read the whole article, and I can't find any definitions other than that one offered. Can someone help? Should the first sentence be rewritten, or removed? It isn't often that an encyclopedia article leaves me more confused than I was when I started reading it!

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help clear things up. 74.131.22.105 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been researching the subject for years and have found that the terms have long been mixed up. Some female impersonators told them that they considered themselves drag queens. Since many female impersonators today are gay, the straight men who cross-dress are trying to separate themselves from that group. It's interesting that some of the most famous female impersonators in the days of vaudeville went to great lengths to stress that they were really very manly when they weren't wearing women's clothes. Anyway, the basic term for cross-dressing comes from the 1910 writings when the term "transvestism" was first used. Today, most gay men who wear women clothes use the term "drag queen" and most straight men who wear women clothes use the term "cross-dresser." One also sees the term "female impersonator" used, especially in the performing arts. There's often been debate as to whether some of the actors who dressed as women really enjoyed it or not. It has been complicated today because some men have said they cross-dress both on and off the stage or screen. Sallyrob 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Drag queens

The drag queen section should probably be moved to Drag queen. It was only started ([1]) with someone who seemed to think transvestism could only mean transvestic fetishism, trying to claim "Drag queens are neither transvestites or crossdressers", which is not always true since the words transvestite and cross-dresser sometimes are used to include drag queens

Also note that the claim they are usually straight is contradicted by the drag queen article. Mdwh 02:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC) My conversations with female impersonators led me to discover that many of them are gay, but there are some who are straight, too. Most said they don't experience any particular pleasure in impersonating women, but they obviously enjoy the performance aspects of portraying women.Sallyrob 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There probably should at least be a cross reference here, to refer readers to the article on drag queens. So many of the terms referring to various forms of cross-dressing or transvestism are misunderstood or confused. The textbooks on the subject begin with the original term "transvestism," which probably covers all forms of cross-dressing by homosexuals and heterosexuals. In explaining these things, it is difficult to be really specific without including material to could be offensive to some readers and inappropriate to others, especially children. Given the fact that some of my friends told me they began cross-dressing as children, it's obvious that there are many children who might read this material wondering if they are unique or different. My own research, mostly for the Fort Wayne, Indiana, Rainbow Reader, led me to discover that some children, especially boys, cross-dressed for a time and then gave it up. Others continued to cross-dress as adults, especially if their parents told them not to do it! Sallyrob 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That which was removed and restored

I wrote this a while back:

==Related word: travesty==

Although the term transvestism was a modern invention, it has exactly the same two Latin roots :as the word travesty, which dates from the 17th century. According to the Oxford English :Dictionary, the word travesty originally meant "to disguise by changing costume", then "to :dress ridiculously", but soon came to mean "a parody or burlesque" and finally added to that :its modern meaning of "disgraceful imitation".

Someone took it out, but I don't have the patience to find out who in the midst of all the hissy fits in the page history, but an article about transvestism the word that does not include travesty the word is not a complete article. I'm sorry that travesty annoyed someone (it is a negative word, after all), but it is part of this story. I don't have an anti-TV agenda here. This is a word related to the word the article is about, and related in a pretty interesting way at that.

Ortolan88 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is such a big deal to you to include this, if you are not trying to be anti-TV. Most articles on wikipedia do not contain a detailed examination of the linguistic roots of the topic. See, the article is not on "'transvestism' the word," as you say, it is an article on transvestism, the concept. There is a huge difference between a word, which is independently an empty signifier, and what is signified by that word, which is a concept that has nothing inherently to do with the word itself.Fofe510 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I put it back (again). because I think it is relevant. I don't care about TV or anti-TV, I care about language. Don't you think it is important to separate transvestism from the related word travesty? I do. I think it is a travesty to keep taking it out. Ortolan88 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with including roots of the word, but it's not clear we need to mention other words that have the same original Latin root, but have a different derivation and meaning? Mdwh (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me. It might even be said that the development of the modern word was in defiance of the older word. That is, and this is completely relevant to the main part of this article, a word that that travesty, a word that originally referred to wearing clothes of the opposite sex had so far developed as to leave that original meaning behind, and thus making a place open for the modern word, transvestism. I think this is a fascinating example of how language develops. Ortolan88 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote the main article: "This article deals with the history of the word 'transvestite'." I am not "trying to be anti-TV"; I am trying to keep the article whole and complete. I can understand that someone who is "pro-TV" might prefer not to have what they consider a negative word discussed, but since this is an encyclopedia and not a pro-TV publication, that is not an NPOV approach. Ortolan88 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Would you include a discussion of the word "hysteria" in an article about women? The inclusion of "travesty" is to shade the article in an anti-TV way. - Iceberg3k (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.141.181 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The word was originally meant the same thing as transvestite, and this is fully supported by the source quoted. This has nothing to do with being "pro" or "anti" anything. It is simply a fact which is germane to the topic of the article. Furthermore, the analogy of hysteria with women is a bad one, since the two words are etymologically unrelated. Hysteria is mentioned (briefly) in the uterus article (which is a stub anyway). silly rabbit (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in uterus, except as a disambiguation because of Hystera redirecting there (and that was only added recently). Nor is it a stub? So I think his point still stands. Mdwh (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How does his point stand? Are the terms "woman" and "hysteria" etymologically identical? No, they aren't. No valid point was being made. silly rabbit (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Travesty" and "transvestitism" were created at different times, to describe completely disparate things. The description of the word "travesty" does nothing to expand upon transvestitism as a concept because they don't describe even remotely the same thing (travesty was created to describe a dramatic concept, transvestitism to describe a psychological one). - Iceberg3k (talk)

I am so happy to see that this little linguistic addition of mine, instead of being attacked as "anti-TV" has grown in the true Wikipedia fashion and is now a far better and more informed discussion than my original "seed". I sometimes despair of Wikipedia, but not right now. Ortolan88 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, please explain why travesty expands anything on transvestitism? It's not enough to be linguistically similar, it has to illustrate part of the concept or condition of transvestism and I'm simply not sure what it does in this regard. - Iceberg3k (talk)

All right, I will. The Latin root trans means, roughly, "across". Thus, transportation derives from words that mean "carry across", transcontinental means "across the continent". Various words derived from the Latin vestire or "to dress" refer to clothes, such as divest, which once meant "remove the clothes" and investiture in which the bishop gets his new clothes. Travesty derives from two words that mean "swap clothes" and transvestite derives from the same two words and also means "swap clothes".

Both the dramatic and the psychological concept involve swapping clothes. This does "describe the same thing" and it is not a "remote" relationship. This article purports to related the history of the word transvestism and it is an argument against plain fact to deny the relationship between swapping clothes in Shakespeare and swapping clothes in modern life. I simply do not see how you can say that the early usage does nothing to "illustrate the concept" of the modern psychological understanding. Indeed, from Shakespeare to Eddie Izzard looks like a direct line to me, both are dramatic performances involving exchange of clothing usually not worn by the person wearing them. By the same token, I am pretty sure that the psychological concept of transvestism was probably explored by the Shakespearean actors, aren't you?

The entire argument against putting a discussion the word travesty in an article about the word transvestism is that travesty is considered a negative word and some people object to seeing a negative word in what they apparently consider "their" article. In other words, the objections are POV.

The argument for putting travesty in the article is that the relationship between the two words is important, historical, and, as plain and obvious as could be besides. Furthermore, as the addition of the points about drama illustrates, travesty isn't even all that negative. Cordially, Ortolan88 (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC).

Removed. Ortolan88, you seriously have some issues to work out.72.138.142.179 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And what would those be, pray tell? Ortolan88 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's rather peculiar that for over a year now, you have been desperately trying to make an extremely tenuous connection between the concepts of transvestitism and travesty. Your reasoning is deeply flawed; "travesty" has no part in the actual etymology of the word "transvestite." Please terminate your pathetic campaign of non Sequitur defamation against transvestites. Your actions are reminiscent of politicians that focus themselves on homophobic policies... and then eventually are discovered to be homosexuals themselves.Fofe510 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology studies the derivation of words. The fact that "travesty" and "transvestite" have similar roots does not mean they have an etymological connection. Heroin and codeine are both derived from morphine, but that doesn't mean heroin was derived from codeine or vice versa. Ortolan88, you are not discussing the etymology of "transvestite," but rather you are trying to use its actual etymology as a smokescreen to link it to something else, which it has nothing to do with.

And as for your claims that travesty isn't that negative, here's what it means: "a literary or artistic burlesque of a serious work or subject, characterized by grotesque or ludicrous incongruity of style, treatment, or subject matter."Fofe510 (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ortolan88/Silly Rabbit, why can't you respond to my arguments? Stop staining this page with your bigotry, and try responding to my criticisms. I have completely refuted your concerns, and yet you continue to alter the page without justification. You are offending people, and I will repeat that "TRAVESTY" IS NOT A PART OF THE ETYMOLOGICAL HISTORY OF "TRANSVESTITE." IT HAS NO PLACE ON THIS PAGE. Why don't you just add a paragraph about every word that shares the Latin roots? Etymology studies the derivation of a word, ergo, the etymology of "transvestite" involves the word(s) it was derived from, and words that were derived from it. Words that were derived from the same place that "transvestite" was derived from DO NOT share an etymological connection to it. In discussing its etymology, only the word's parents and children are relevant, not its cousins. You are doing nothing more than thinly veiling your hatred behind a baseless claim of fact. Stop it this instant.Fofe510 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of bigotry are completely offbase, and are in violation of Wikipedia behavioral conduct policies WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The two words are similar in meaning (at least historically and in some contemporary literary circles), and share identical latin derivations. The article is about the term transvestism/transvestite, and discussion of terms having a similar meaning and identical derivation is clearly germane to the stated subject of the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My accusations are neither offbase nor in violation of the behavioural policies. The words are not similar in meaning, since dramatic travesty refers to a parody, satire or otherwise critical attack on what it imitates, and transvestite means quite the opposite. AGAIN, just because they share Latin roots does not mean they are connected to each other. This article is NOT about the "term," as you say, it is about the practice of transvestitism. It is most certainly not germane to the subject of the article, and has been interpreted by numerous people on this discussion page as an underhanded insult to transvestites. It should be permanently removed.Fofe510 (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First, did you bother looking at the references provided? If you had, then you would have seen that, indeed, the two terms have a similar meaning historically and in some contemporary literary contexts as well. Second, the article is indeed "about the term". The blurb at the top reads: This article deals with the history of the word 'transvestite'. For information about cross-dressing, see there. For information about the sexual fetish, see transvestic fetishism. If you would care to read the article then I think you will discover that, as promised, it deals with the term transvestite, and not about the practice (which is discussed in cross-dressing). So much for that. Third, please explain how calling someone a bigot, intimitating that he or she "has issues", and then suggesting that he or she has a hidden agenda to defame homosexuals is assuming good faith and not making personal attacks. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently we have the information duplicated here and at Travesty. Since the section is mainly about the word "travesty" and not the word "transvestism", my suggestion would be to only have the information at the travesty article. Repeating it is redundant, and means we have to keep to sections up to date when one is edited (already we have the problem that refs have been added to this article, but not in travesty). Since this article is about the word transvestism, it doesn't make sense to cover another word just because it has the same roots. Mdwh (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be reasonable to me. I didn't realize that there was an article on travesty already. (Nor that there was duplication of material for that matter.) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with this resolution although I did add a See also to this article. I am glad to see that I have been vindicated by someone else. I didn't come into this to pick a fight. I came into it to improve the Wikipedia. I should add that insults from people who can't read or follow a line of reasoning don't really hurt me very much. Ortolan88 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

2007 ~ International Meanings

I wonder whether there have been studies of an international nature asking how we see ourselves.

In my experience, in the UK, the term transvestite is very much the same as I understand cross-dresser to be in the USA; it does not have any special sometimes negative connotations ascribed to fetishistic behaviour, nor a bias to gay or bi-sexual sexual leaning.

Those that feel they are in the wrong body are considered transexual (whether pre-op, post-op or non-op).

....and the umbrella term, most frequently used to describe the whole spectrum is 'transgendered', often shortened to tgirl or t-girl

217.34.37.64 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)TinaC

Automated Peer Review

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth there it is. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal Review

Based on what I know of this topic what is here all sounds about right. The article looks almost right as well. I do notice that there are only two citations for the whole article. I am sure that citations to back up this version of the article can be found if one looks for them. Another problem is the lead. The lead section should give a overview of the content of the article. Other than those two things I think this could become a really good article and would nominate it as such. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disorder

This behavior and its social associations is considered by most to be a disorder, and this article needs to include the psychological causes and treatment for this disorder. It is completely obvious after reading this article that is was written by supporters of transvestism, and does very little more than to describe the phenomena. Why do people do this? What are the causes? Treatment?

Trying to pass this behavior as normal is not acceptable for an encyclopedia like this, and this behavior is still considered by most to be a behavioral and social disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.109.8 (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Considered by who to be a disorder? Let's have references, not opinion. And what kind of behaviour are you referring to, specifically? As noted by the article, "transvestism" can refer to various different behaviours.

Which bits of the article "pass this behavior as normal"? As you say yourself, the article only describes the phenomena - so which is it?

Lastly, note that this article is about the usage and history of the word "transvestism". If you seem to think it is a disorder, then perhaps you are after transvestic fetishism. If you want information on why people cross-dress in general, then that is given in other articles such as cross-dressing. (Although one might as well ask why do some women wear trousers and some wear dresses, or ask if it's "normal" - that doesn't mean that such things need to be covered in an encyclopedia.) Mdwh (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama

"In addition, Barrak Obama has been know to dabble in the transvestite activities"

What the hell? This should be removed.

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1