Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 18 August 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transsexual article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 6 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Transgender on 2015-07-08. The result of the discussion was the articles were not merged.

Archives
2003 (2003) 2004 (2004) 2005 (2005) Jan - Jun 2006 Jun 2006 - Jan 2007 2007 2008 - present

An important point...

I would like to see some reference to the viewpoint brought up by, for example, Kate Bornstein in "Gender Outlaw" which is that transsexual people may not always feel the necessity for sex reassignment operations (especially, conscious of their possible complications and general uncertainty of the outcome) or indeed strongly dislike their body/genitals (except perhaps for the reason that society does not accept their body to be of the sex or gender that they feel they represent). She proposes the division to pre- and postoperative transsexuals be given up. English is not my first language and I am not certain I know enough on the topic to do this myself, but I'm hoping perhaps there is someone else interested in this aspect and willing to contribute? Shadowcrow 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Kate bornstein is an interesting writer, and she does have some strong opinions.

Part of her argument is that there should be no male/female gender division, and that transsexuals are giving into medical and social structures when they ascribe to the medical process.

The problem is, to subscribe to the medical process, and be diagnosed as transsexuals, they need to have strong cross-gender identification, not just "agender" identification - and additionally, they have to desire surgery, else they don't fit the medical defenition of transsexualism (as in the DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10, anyway).

I think there should be a small section on this, but it does not represent the majority of transsexuals. A more appropriate place to put it would perhaps be transgender rather than transsexualism.

As a side-note, her (Kate Bornstein's} theory is quite similar (perhaps disturbingly so) to Janice Raymond's hypothesis about transsexualism. Both are strongly criticised by some, including Patrick Califia, who I've referenced on a couple of pages now.

Cheers! Lauren 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there already exists the prefix "non-op" to counter "pre-op" and "post-op". Maybe this is mostly restricted to areas where transsexuality is well accepted, like Seattle. But I've already heard it fairly commonly in use. I personally couldn't imagine being non-op... and all of my non-trans female friends probably would agree with me that I'm not "raping" their bodies as Janice Raymond would put it... to them it's entirely naturally that I'm female. I would however argue that there are transsexuals out there who this would describe, but then there are men out there who physically rape women. As with anything, categorizing any group of people and giving a generic reason for their motives, just isn't appropriate, or justified. Sorry to get on a person-ish rant here. But I really just wanted to point out that there are non-op transsexuals out there. And they receive the same treatment all of the other transsexuals do. --Puellanivis 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I left out aknowledging the non-op transsexuals - I certainly know they exist. I don't dispute that these people are transsexual, or should be labeled otherwise - instead I hoped to include them (although I seem to have failed :) ). My main point in relation to them is that they don't fit the medical definition if they don't desire surgery - but you can be non-op and still desire surgery, or non-op and not desire surgery.

Absolutely non-op individuals need and hopefully recieve medical support - usually under a slightly different diagnosis. And I support them in their right to decide how they want to live, whether or not I would make that choice in the first place.

Most of my objection was supposed to be aimed at the argument by Bornstein that anyone who wants an operation is giving in to a medical diagnosis, and all transsexuals should instead be "gender outlaws" - that none of us should want bottom surgery, and we should all be non-op. It's that that I object to and believe is a view held by a minority of transsexuals, but perhaps describes more people who are transgendered.

Sorry for any accidental offense. Cheers! Lauren 05:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand better now. That makes more sense. ... Yeah, I just can't agree with that at all. I'm sorry, but I have more than just "preference" for why I want "bottom surgery". Well, first of all, it would be nice to be able to stop taking anti-androgens. Second of all, it's extremely uncomfortable for me. I know an FTM to was talking to the list about how he was very happy to be getting his top surgery done, because during the summers it caused him a great deal of discomfort to bind himself during the summer. I can typically identify with this issue, but instead of being top issues, it's bottom issues. If I'm uncomfortable with something, I'm going to get it taken care of, and I'm not going to let some ideological reasoning stop me from getting that surgery. My ideological reasons don't confront me in the shower, and on the toilet, and it doesn't rub and chafe me in the summer. I can work with the process and still seek to have issues addressed for a better process for following people. I don't expect the world to be perfect for me, but I do hope that I leave it better for those who follow than I had it. --Puellanivis 06:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hear, Hear, Easy Access to Surgery To Eventually Reduce Chafing! (Tounge-in cheek, I agree totally.) Cheers! Lauren 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

might i make the point that many people throughout this section and others are using terminology that is in fact incorrect. One prominent example:

"male/female gender division"....this is a sex division, just as "masculine/feminine and man/woman" are gender divisions

We as a community continue to elide the distinctions between sex & gender even as we depend on such distinctions to explain, indeed to make sense of, our lives. It is exactly this carelessness, bred by decades living amongst people who neither make nor understand such points, that leads to confusion amongst ourselves as to the best way to see our commonalities and create effective coalitions. It is only in understanding our diversity, I contest, that we may celebrate it. It is only in celebrating our diversity that we may bridge across the lines that divide us. To do otherwise is to set out building a bridge without determining exactly where a river's shores lie.

also, note how using "transgender" as a personal noun is much less acceptable than using "transsexual" as a personal noun. I believe that usage such as "A transsexual was having lunch right next to me!" continues and contributes to the dehumanization of transsexual people. I propose that our articles exclusively use, and advocate the exclusive use of, transsexual as an adjective. Thus, "Transsexual women have objected..." but not "transsexuals have objected."

Finally, Virginia Prince created the general concept of "transgender" as a specific counterpoint to "transsexual" because - and this is important - Prince believed transsexual people to be sick, and indeed disgusting, and wished to divorce herself from transsexual people in every way possible. Later academic communities declared, fait a compli, that transsexual people were a subcategory of transgender people. This leads the public to the obvious conclusion that when you have a "transgender" guest speaking at an event that the speaker will be an expert on, and represent transgender perspectives - including transsexual perspectives. I don't believe that this follows, nor do I believe that we should represent to the public that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Finally, in the main article, the arguments against transsexual subsumption under the category of transgender are, in the main, "straw man" arguments. I will endeavor to add a reasonable articulation of the more realistic arguments without removing the others - it certainly does not hurt to disprove silly arguments, whether they are the most common and/or most powerfully made or not. But note, this has DIRECT BEARING on the discussion above about non-op transsexual people.

While there are many reasons that one could be resolved not to have any operations (the Tuskeegee fiasco points to reasons why one might mistrust the idea of allowing a surgeon to render unconscious and cut on the body of a person from a marginalized group, then there are economic issues, health issues in persons with other conditions, etc.), there is a very important distinction to be made between those people who believe that something is wrong with their bodies (no matter what they will/won't do about that problem) and people who believe that something is wrong with how society views their bodies.

Locating the problem in the somatic self is different than locating the problem in the social dynamic. It leads one to search for different solutions and use different tactics to arrive at those solutions. While in general everyone who encounters this "problem" gains a certain amount of understanding of the points of view of others who share similar problems, we are not the same, our thinking is not the same, and despite a near-universal desire for widespread social change with regard to gender, the protections we need until and changes we desire when the revolution comes are not the same.

We can have both, but only if we consider both perspectives. That will only happen if we understand that "trans-ing" sex is in fact different from "trans-ing" gender. One is not a subset of the other, but each can be a powerful ally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripdyke (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC) --oops, corrected a typo when I came back to see if any1 had any responses to this lil' tidbit.

I think there is some confusion between "gender" and "sex" in these discussions. I see this more and more often in discussions about trans issues, and it's kind of distressing. As humans we do have two sexes, male and female. Gender is more fluid, and while it is partly a social construct, humans do exhibit sexual dimorphism. People who want to say we shouldn't have any gender roles are constantly trying to force this onto transgender people, and then we end up with nonsense terms like "genderqueer." But it's the sex not matching the gender that is the issue. This whole article is getting away from transsexualism and is talking about cross dressers, etc., as part of a wider "transgender umbrella" which is starting to become way too vague for many. People who identify as "transsexual" have the feeling they were born into the wrong body, as far as their assigned sex, and want to change that. It's generally very specific. There will be some medical interventions, such as HRT, and FFS, but not always SRS. This is not true of cross dressers, et al. All the rest of this "transgender" stuff has been more-or-less invented by academics over analyzing things. As to not exclude anyone, everyone is thrown into the same pot, which I do not think is helpful at all. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DavidRavenMoon Please do not be insulting by calling people's identities "nonsense". Second, you are incorrect about there being two sexes: Intersex. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with EvergreenFir. Genderqueer is not a nonsense term, nor is agender, bigender, or any of many other gender identities. In addition to intersex people, there are also neutrois people who may wish to change their physical bodies to a null or neuter sex appearance. Funcrunch (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The World Health Organization's Genomic resource centre states: "Intersex is defined as a congenital anomaly of the reproductive and sexual system." It's a birth defect. So that is not a normal human sexual differentiation, and many times the reproductive system is not fully developed. It's NOT a third sexual state (or incorrectly "gender"). My issue with the term "genderqueer" is that we already had terminology that fit, such as "androgyny," and because of the association of "queer" with homosexuality, since gender has nothing to do with sexual attraction. The word "queer" only adds ambiguity when used in this context. People who didn't know the correct terminology just made something up. We have a hard enough time with cisgender people thinking that trans-women are just gay men in dresses. Let's not make it easier for them. People can do what ever they want as far as how they look, or not. They can try and suppress their gender, but when they start naming it and saying this is a standard human condition, that's more out of a need for validation. We have always had people who were more gender neutral, such as tomboy girls, or effeminate men. But this does not make them transsexuals or transgender, nor does it mean we need to make up new phrases like "genderqueer" et al. Gender was always fluid. Sex is not. Sex is binary, and humans are sexually dimorphic. If this were not the case, then we would not have transgender people, would we? The "trans* community" suffers from groupthink, and these words are an indication of that. I am speaking as a transsexual and I know may others who agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRavenMoon (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Androgny" is not at all analogous to "Genderqueer". The former is a blend of masculine and feminine presentation. The latter is an umbrella term that can include anyone who does not identify as a man or a woman. This can include bigender, agender, gender-fluid, etc.

I also speak as a transsexual (FTM - I am also agender, as I separate gender from sex), and I do not police other people's labels. And I don't see how this discussion is even relevant to Misplaced Pages, because the term exists and people are using it whether we personally like it or think it's accurate or not. Funcrunch (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is getting quite off topic. DavidRavenMoon, please stop making negative comments about a class of people. This is not a forum.

Alison, would this article be covered under the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Final_decision? And Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-16/Arbitration_report? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article does come under the influence of the Sexology Arb ruling - Alison 06:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll add the box to the top of this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see DavidRavenMoon's side of the matter, and I see Funcrunch's and EvergreenFir's sides of the matter. Like I stated here, at "02:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)" and "03:26, 7 May 2014": Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction exists and third gender/genderqueer matters are usually formulated in gender terms (boy/man; girl/woman)... ...I'll grant you that I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).

If anyone wants me to provide WP:Reliable sources for my above statement, I can. I'll now leave you all to debate what you were debating. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm basically in agreement with Flyer22 here, though I'd add that there are cases of dizygotic 'individuals' comprising both XX and XY karyotypical cells. These people generally identify as either male or female and it's exceedingly rare. You could argue that they have a strong gender identity though their sex may not be so clearly defined. While humans are sexually dimorphic, Nature has a habit of throwing exceptions into the mix, so it's not all that cut and dried - Alison 06:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there's Norrie May-Welby and (according to that article) possibly a couple of intersex people who have been legally recognized as having a neuter or indeterminate physical sex. Not gender, sex. As far as genders, I don't think it's possible to identify a quantifiable number of those since the concept of gender is so culture-dependent, but that's my non-expert opinion; I don't know if there is a definitive authority on that subject. Funcrunch (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, even in Australia, there is a legal difference between sex and intersex status. Just because some intersex people (and some other people like Norrie May-Welby) have a sex defined differently to male or female does not, ipso facto make all intersex people members of a third sex classification. That is even opposed by an international community consensus statement. It is more true to say that an intersex variation complicates initial sex assignment. Trankuility (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Trinity FFS site

www.facialfeminizationsurgery.net ==

More on above

Same link removed from this entry numerous times already. Site in question contains content lifted without permission from at least two other sites:

• Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon
• TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison

The site has been spammed under multiple listings on Misplaced Pages. Many speculate the site owner is responsible for repeated attempts to reinsert the link here and elsewhere. The owner has had an unsatisfactory experience with plastic surgeon Douglas Ousterhout and has been publicizing this dissatisfaction in any venue available. Since the link appears under the Ousterhout entry and is not considered a primary trans web resource or a neutral point of view, it should not be listed under the general heading.

note:

• original comment was removed by 68.185.69.177 on 8 March and replaced that day.
• comment removed by 68.185.69.177 again on 9 March and replaced that day.

Jokestress 15:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TAKE A LOOK AT TRINITY'S SITE AND COMPARE WHAT THIS USER IS SAYING TO WHAT IS ON THE TRINITY SITE AND YOU SEE THAT Jokestress IS MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.

Jokestress Makes the claim that info has been lifted from * Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon

Compare the the link at **Trinity Site is question You will find the site uses frames, which would require you to dirctly right click on top of the Electrolysis and Laser link, then left click on open in a new link to see where it's linked to. Jokestress tries to use peoples lack of knowing how web pages work to make it seem like that site is stealing something when it's not doing any such thing.

Click on the link to the Electrolysis & Laser Treatments

Electrolysis and Laser **Electrolysis & Laser Treatments Area in question Notice the site links directly to Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon www.hairremovalpros.com being the site Jokestress claims is being lifted without permission. The site in questoin is linked to the same site Jokestress is claiming to be lifted by the Trinity site and this is the first example of slander by Jokestress

Now look at the other site Jokestress claims has had info lifted from it. TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison and compare the the links at **Trinity Site is question There are no TG-friendly Therapists listed on the site at all. Another example of slander by Jokestress

Slader after slander after slander.

I moved the above response by 68.185.69.177 below the earlier comment by me. Frames or not, the issue at hand was whether the site link should appear under this entry. Since several other Wikipedians had removed the link previously, I was following suit. Finally, the removal of comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. This is a place for discussion of conflicts, not for removing comments with which one disagrees. Jokestress 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jokestress you lied about the site and the owner time and time again. I would not be surprised that people who removed the site are past patients of Douglas Ousterhout. I think you would want to up date you statement since accused **Trinity Site is question lifting items and it has not done what you claim. The site is linked on some of the major TG sites om the web by the owners of the site. So there are bound to be people who link it here and other places. If a site is linked on one major site on the web, it will bound to get links other places by the people who read the site and like it.

OK, let's take another look at more Trinity content lifted from another site as an example. Electrologists and Laser in CA is lifted almost verbatim from California Electrolysis Page on Karyn's Transsexual Refuge. Bottom line is that the Trinity site has padded out some areas to make it seem like a general resource site, but its primary goal is to complain about a surgeon Trinity does not like. Jokestress 15:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a semi-objective bystander here, I want to state that Jokestress's website is one of the most comprehensive and genuinely useful ones out there on the Web. She takes definite stances on some things, and is a very successful client of Ousterhout, but she errs on the side of cautious scrutiny and caveat emptor in all cases. She is extremely NPOV about everything she states on her website, and I am sure her edits here are, as well. I don't have caches of the website(s) in question, so I can't swear to the absolute accuracy of her points here, but I would bet a lot of money that she is in the right here. (Is this an appropriate place to make this point? I'm still kinda new to Misplaced Pages.) Jiawen 04:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As another bystander here I would like to revive the this about the Trinity site that was unjustly put down by Andrea JamesJokestress's www.tsroadmap.com

Andrea James Jokestress is was not NPOV when it comes to the subject of Trinity Rose or her sitewww.facialfeminizationsurgery.net The number one reason being that Andrea James Jokestress has been taking large contributions from Dr. Douglas Ousterhout for the past ten years in the name of the events Andrea James Jokestress has been presenting. Dr. Douglas Ousterhout been presented at the top of the guest list at the events she has organized because of the contributions to the event. Kind of hard to be NPOV about ike Trinity or her sitewww.facialfeminizationsurgery.net when you are accepting large amounts of money from Dr. Douglas Ousterhout. It would also be difficult to be NPOV Andrea James Jokestress's www.tsroadmap.com website promotes Dr. Douglas Ousterhout and you are selling videos promoting Dr. Douglas Ousterhout surgeries.

Another note I woud ike to touch on is when Andrea James Jokestress was trying to keep this Trinity’s off links section, Trinity’s site and Andrea’s were in direct competition in content and scope.

I think we should talk about this matter a great deal and get some facts out including some letters that have been made pubic about Dr. Mark Zukowski and Dr. Douglas Ousterhout fighting about Trinity case. The facts of the contents of the Dr. Douglas Ousterhout's letter to Dr. Mark Zukowski is to force him to get Dr. Anne Lawrence to remove Trinity's link from her website www.annelawrence.com/twr/index.html by way of treats. And for anyone that does not know this Andrea James Jokestress and Dr. Anne Lawrence have also been debating on number of subjects for many years now through the use of their websites and other media.

I think on the next response to this I will also provide get the link for the Dr. Douglas Ousterhout letter to Dr. Mark Zukowski.

There is a great dea of history when it comes to the matter of the Trinity Rose site and her ordeal with Dr. Douglas Ousterhout that people just don't know 23 Apr 2008

Transsexualism no longer defined as a disorder in DSM-V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transsexual. Origin of the word

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

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

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

Definition

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

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

"Disease", DSM, and ICD

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

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

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

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

Propose changing name of page from Transsexualism to Transsexual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen
2. http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Hurts-Feminist-Analysis-Transgenderism/dp/0415539404
3. http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
4. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=transsexual%2C%20Transsexualism%2C%20Transsexuality&cmpt=q&tz=
5. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#cat=0-22&q=transsexual%2C%20Transsexualism%2C%20Transsexuality&cmpt=q&tz=
6. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#cat=0-533&q=transsexual%2C%20Transsexualism%2C%20Transsexuality&cmpt=q&tz=
7. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#cat=0-19&q=transsexual%2C%20Transsexualism%2C%20Transsexuality&cmpt=q&tz=
8. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Transsexualism%2C%20TERF&cmpt=q&tz=
9. http://rationalwiki.org/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism

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

Requested move 8 March 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/dsm_iv.html

Merger Proposal with Transgender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a WP:HAT to Transgender and vice versa

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

Note: Moved my post down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do the sources say about "transsexualism" being either an identity and/or as being part of the transgender umbrella term? We should be using the sources to settle this argument of POV of separate identity vs. sub-identity of transgender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The term transsexual (denoting fill in the blank) is generally considered a subset of transgender, an umbrella term which includes men and women (and sometimes non-binary people) whose gender identity does not match their birth sex.

Incidentally, this highlights that the first few sentences of the current lead may need revision, because they define transsexual identically to how the article transgender defines that term, yet the reason the articles weren't merged is that they're not identical. (But how shall we fill in the blank — "people who desire to or do change their sex through surgery to match their gender identity"?)

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

• The use of the terms transsexual (coined in 1949) and transgender (coined in 1965) has changed over time; since the 1990s . Many trans people prefer the designation transgender and reject transsexual, but some people who change their sex prefer the designation transsexual and reject transgender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles