Talk:Transgender

Template:FAOL

Historical examples

This article claims there are countless historical examples of transgendered people yet provides no reference, should the claim be removed without proof or else provide a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.218.228.176 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Identities

I noticed that in 'Identities', the listing of the categories is uncited. This leaves me wondering: Is this a scientifical statement at all? Who else, besides the transgender organisations, which are hardly unbiased sources, supports the view that all these categories belong to transgender? 89.182.72.73 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I now checked cross-dressing, and found this (sourced!) definition: "Cross-dressing is the act of wearing clothing commonly associated with another gender within a particular society." Now, this definition fits everybody who once, for what reason at all, wore clothings of the other gender, for instance many actors or totally average guys who, for instance, dressed as a witch at carnival. And per 'Identities' here, those people are transgenders. Don't you have to agree that this broad definition is total nonsense? And since I now am supposed to be, to my huge surprise, a member of the transgender community, I urgently demand to know who is responsible for this idiocy! Where is the source for this 'definition'???89.182.72.73 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not all cross-dressing implies transgenderism, but in some cases it may, and there is an overlap. It does say "Cross-dressers may not identify with, or want to be the opposite gender, nor adopt the behaviors or practices of the opposite gender, and generally do not want to change their bodies medically.", which seems to make this clear. As for scientific definitions, of course they should be included if they exist, but I presume "transgender" is a word used in more contexts than just scientific ones (but as you say, sources would be good). Mdwh 10:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is a "scientific" article to show that all cross-dressers are transgender and to prove the umbrella-ness of the term transgender. That is a literary or linguistic argument that has yet to be resolved. Essentially the definitions of words need to evolve significantly and be generally accepted by people. From this, it is important that the trans community not only define themselves well, but explain their definitions well and propogate the ideas. Therefore if a majority of trans groups agree to the definition we should list it as the definition to encourage assimilation in society which will result in wide-spread acceptance. Did everyone get that? (Kiyae 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, and good luck getting the meeting going on all that! Benjiboi 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore if a majority of trans groups agree to the definition we should list it as the definition to encourage assimilation in society which will result in wide-spread acceptance." Firstly, what definition? That everybody is a "cross-dresser" who once dressed like a member of the other gender, for whatever reason, even if it was a single incident? Sry, but by this definition, hundreds of millions would be 'cross-dressers', without their approval. Even if you could show a majority of transgender groups supporting this view (this would be difficult, is there a comprehensive list of those groups, and how do you weigh them? By counting their members?), they would still not be representative of this large group of 'single-instance cross-dressing' heterosexuals. And, don't forget, T groups are hardly an unbiased source regarding this issue. They have an interest in boosting the number of people they allegedly represent in order to increase their standing. This raises questions about NPOV. That's why I spend a lot of time looking for a good definition by an expert, and Gilbert,as a professor of Philosophy who specialized on gender and transgender issues, publishing in 'The Journal of Transgenderism', was the best I could find. If you don't like his definition, look for another one by someone with a similar qualification, and let's discuss this here. 89.182.93.50 10:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool "to encourage assimilation in society" and to support "wide-spread acceptance"! These are important issues, but WP can't take a stand. 89.182.93.50 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-Dressing vs. Cross-Dresser

Having cross-dressed once, for whatever reason, doesn't make a person a cross dresser. This should be self-evident, and an article in "The International Journal of Transgenderism" supports this view: "Another group that may be excluded by the BVD test can be those female impersonators who look upon dressing as solely connected to their livelihood, actors undertaking roles, individual males and females enjoying a masquerade, and so on. These individuals are cross dressing but are not cross dressers." http://www.symposion.com/ijt/gilbert/gilbert.htm What's needed here is a new article on Cross-Dressers that gives a clear and scientific definition, mirroring the predominant scientific view. Also, the overly broad definition that is now given under 'Identities' here obfuscates thew issue and should be revised. 89.182.0.102 10:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading further in The Journal of Transgenderism, which features numerous articles by renowned experts in the field, I have found not a single instance so far where the overly broad definition is supported. Here's just one of the countless statements on the definition of Transgenderism: "Transgenderism as it is now defined includes a significant part of the population, including many who can also be classed as gay or lesbian, as well as transsexuals, individuals who have gone public in their transgender persona, others who belong to the various clubs and organizations, and thousands who have not yet admitted to anyone other than their spouse or significant other that they have some transgender characteristics." http://www.symposion.com/ijt/gilbert/bullough.htm Professor Bullough clearly states here that transgenderism copes with perons having "transgender characteristics". Nothing in this definition can be interpreted as supporting the view that a single instance of cross dressing necessarily is evidence for the presence of such a characteristic. Actors, for instance, are obviously not transgender perons under this definition. 89.182.0.102 10:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We already cover this distinction well, I think, in the article cross-dressing which you removed the link to:

The term cross-dressing denotes an action or a behaviour without attributing or proposing causes for that behaviour. Some people automatically connect cross-dressing behaviour to transgender identity or sexual, fetishist, and homosexual behaviour, but the term cross-dressing itself does not imply any motives. (See "Equal clothing rights" below.) However, referring to a person as a cross-dresser suggests that their cross-dressing behaviour is habitual and may be taken to mean that the person identifies as transgendered. The term cross-dresser should therefore be used with care to avoid causing misunderstanding or offence.

Yes, I agree the section here needs improving. Mdwh 10:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you (or someone else?) restored the link, but designated it as "see also". This is a much better solution, sry that I didn't have that idea. I'm checking the discussion on "cross-dressing" now again, I already did that before, but didn't find the relevant part. Thx for quoting it here, this clears up the picture. I support the view that the motives (including the unconscious ones) and the habit is important. This should be included in the explanation in an appropriate form. Maybe there is a good quote somewhere by a renowned source. 89.182.0.102 11:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found the quote in the article. And, yes, imho it's appropriate to keep readers from confusing Cross-Dressing and Cross-Dressers. But the definition here still needs a revision. Sadly, I haven't found a good definition in a short form anywhere yet. Even the Experts seem to shy away from giving a clear description of the main points. :-( 89.182.0.102 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, added the definition of Gilbert, even though not fully satisfactory it is still the best one I found so far. I tried my best, had some difficulties with formating the source, so there is still plenty room for improvements by other editors. A nice side-effect: Since Gilbert makes it clear that artists who are cross dressing for professional purposes only are not cross-dressers, the definition of Drag Queens now makes some sense. Before, it was questionable why they were not included in cross-dressers. Again, I tried my vcery best, pls correct if I made mistakes. 89.182.0.102 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your input, and your desire to improve this article, I would like to note to you something of a bit of ettiquette, it is generally considered bad form to edit a post beyond a strikethrough, and that each separate instance of a comment should be separated in the talk pages. This allows one to see the entire history of the talk, and unless the meaning is so absolutely impaired by a grammatical error, we get your point, and this page need not be of publisher quality. So, if you would not mind, simply live with typos, and grammar mistakes in your own and other's works, as this is an informal argument about improving the main article. Thanks so much for your understanding. --Puellanivis 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, sry, but my understanding was that postings shouldn't be altered anymore AFTER someone else answered. As you can see from the timestamps, there hasn't been much of a discussion here :-( As you also can see here and in history, the instances are separated, with two exceptions: The first came from an edit conflict, when I was still amending the posting, and the second one I totally deleted because it was only based on a dumb misunderstanding by me. Sry if those two mess ups confused history a bit. I try to stick to the rules, but, the point is, I don't know the rules very well. OH, and I NEVER edit the talk postings of others. Or did I, by accident? 89.182.0.102 21:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came across as condescending, I didn't mean it to be, I was simply attempting to address a point of etiquette that you didn't seem to be aware of.  :( Sorry if it sounded like I bit your head off, and I take my medicine :( --Puellanivis 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem! It was just that I was a bit surprised, because I really tried to do a good job here. But you were right, my back-and-forth posting on this talkpage must have been somewhat confusing. Maybe you know how it is, when enthusiasm gets you, you don't care as much about details. So, no damage done, and thx for weighing in. Oh, and looking at your userpage, it seems to me weboth share the same two main languages, but you seem to do better with English than me. Is my edit at 'Cross-dresser' ok? I make quite a lot of mistakes at grammar... 89.182.77.205 10:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lede image

When I came upon this article, the following image was at the very top right of the page:

File:Transgender at NYC Gay Pride Parade by David Shankbone.jpg

A transgender woman at New York City's gay pride parade

Another option

Is this really the best place for this particular image? Is a photo of a person in a miniskirt appropriately representative of all aspects of Transgender? I don't think so. I have moved it down, to the section about transgender and sexual orientation, since this person is at a Pride parade. I can't think of what image would be best, if any, for the lede. Suggestions? Thoughts? Photouploaded (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the pride picture, and agree it belongs in the article, but I actually prefer Image:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG as the lede, just because it's a less sexualized picture, and seems to present a more ordinary (but still pretty) image of a transgendered person. One person's opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Transgender, the article, encompasses the historic, medical, legal, interpersonal, sexual, identity... is a photo of one person really appropriate for the lede? She's not the Empress of Transgender. I bet we could come up with something more... broad-spectrum, I guess. Photouploaded (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have the same feelings about the photo of breasts at the top of Breast. Sure, they just happen to be the perky, pink-nippled breasts of a white person. There's no cultural bias there. Ugh. Photouploaded (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Image:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG would make a good lead picture - the "XY"-on-hand statement is more topical to the concept of transgendered sexuality more than a picture of a woman who happens to be transgendered, and is interesting enough to keep the reader interested without being overly sensational or sexualized. krimpet⟲ 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No matter what we put at the top, someone is going to say it doesn't represent someone. The idea is to graphically illustrate the concept. In that vein, either of these two photos work as the lead image. Let's not over-intellectualize something so pedestrian. --David Shankbone 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that "either" image would work. The tendency to exoticize transwomen and to sexualize their very existence is not something that we should perpetuate by putting a picture of a provocatively-posed trans*woman in skimpy clothing at the top of the article. I assume that since you took the picture, you probably would like to see it used, but please try to understand our position: the picture of a fully clothed transwoman in a non-sexual pose is a vast improvement. I will make the same replacement at Transwoman for the same reason. Photouploaded (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people don't find transexuals exotic and sexy at all. You are coming from a POV and you also are not the decider on this issue. We make decisions based upon consensus. Regardless, I think either picture works so whatever is in the lead makes no difference to me. --David Shankbone 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I say that I found transwomen "exotic", or anything else? No, I didn't! I said that there is a cultural tendency to sexualize transwomen, i.e. to put forth the view that transwomen are sex objects, not people.

Everyone comes from a POV. I am not the only person who expressed the opinion that the photo of the woman holding the banner is more appropriate for the lede than the photo of the woman in a miniskirt. If it really "makes no difference" to you, I would appreciate it if you would stop reverting (1, 2) the placement of the photos at Transwoman. Thank you. Photouploaded (talk)

Girls, girls, you're both pretty. Photouploaded, does it really hurt to finish the discussion and be confident of consensus before we make the changes? There's no need to start an edit-war when a nice friendly conversation would work just as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was confident of consensus, at least as far as DavidShankbone was concerned. He plainly said, "...I think either picture works so whatever is in the lead makes no difference to me".]. I took him at his word, and as there was no other objection, I swapped the images over at Transwoman. Then DavidShankbone swapped them back, twice. Indeed, it is important to make sure we have consensus, but that is impeded when people say one thing and do another. Photouploaded (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are taking one discussion at one article and applying it to another article, when there was no consensus to do so. So, that was your mistaken impression. --David Shankbone 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What? DavidShankbone, before I made the change to Transwoman, I announced my plan to do so, on this page. You replied, "I think either picture works so whatever is in the lead makes no difference to me." If that wasn't how you felt about the proposed change, the only "mistaken impression" is the one you created. Photouploaded (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I agree with the change to the less sexualized photo as the lede. Although David Shankbone's photo is great it does show a societal tendency to youthfulness and sexualize which is certainly not universal and not universal to trans people. For anyone else looking to contribute images please consider our international audiences and see if we can find images that reach beyond our current imaged demographics. I also concur that having one discussion here is preferable when the issues are pretty much the same to both articles in question. Benjiboi 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I added an image of a famous Kathoey to the "Transgender people in non-Western cultures" - on a related note, this section could probably use a lot of expansion to cover and link to the many subjects in Category:Transgender in non-western cultures. --krimpet⟲ 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU for changing the leading image! I don't know if I ever said anything, but I've always hated it. As a trans person who has had (at least) one friend come to this page to learn more about me, it's nice to be more positively represented. --Ephilei (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Love the new image, the old one always bothered me. -- random trans user, jan 20, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.176.53 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel a need to comment on this matter. I can feel where the editors of this page are comming from. I too have spent allot of time on a page along with many other people. Now I have taken it upon myself to find a proper picture to represent it. These categories are so broad as to be impossible to represent by just one picture. For example I for one felt better represented by the former lead image. I actually do at times wear clothes like that young ladies. She is also a non-white person living in the USA. Lord knows I know how that feels. Last said image is closer to me in age. You cannot please all of the people all of the time (I personally feel that a good photomontage can work in this kind of case. Some people have a problem with them no matter what. Some people seem to want any and all pictures excised from this site.) There has to be some happy medium. An image that is non "sexualized" while at the same time not the image of a frowning stone faced protester in a cardigan sweater. Good luck. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some hints at NPOV

Specifically, from the NPOV page:

"Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."

Now I recognize that a site specifically about a minority will have more focus on that minorities viewpoints, my specific problem is with the criticisms section of this page. Significantly more text is deveoted to rebuttals to the criticisms than to the criticisms themselves, exposing the undercurrent of bias from the author.

Something needs done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.86.139 (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If an encyclopedia in the days of the Bible were to be printed and say that Leprosy is caused by a disease that is not the person's fault, it would get censured and likely burned. The prevailing knowledge at the time (and still in many undercivilized countries) is that Leprosy is an affliction given divinely to someone who has committed a serious and grave sin/wrong. The criticism available against transgender at this time represents the exact same view of Leprosy as a divine punishment. The majority view of the medical community is that transgenderism, and transsexualism are quite rare, but normal, and not caused by an individual's personal choice. If you're talking about a condition that purports to have a medical basis, then the medical opinion matters, not the uninformed opinion. I really don't think there is creditability at all in presenting any argument from an opinion based on uninformed prejudgement, which is the majority of transgender criticism today. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that entire section, to me, seems rather well-written and exceeding my expectations for articles. Is there a particular criticism that needs a fuller explanation? Benjiboi 11:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV =

This article is very much written without a neutral point of view. First example, the section headed as "Criticism" implies physical attacks (i.e. similar to "gay bashing"), lack of understanding, and bias. It goes on to attack mental health professionals, stating that people who identify themselves as transgendered are often educating mental health professionals. The bias indicates that the medical and health care community "has it wrong" and that the only accepted point of view is that "transgendered" is natural and has only natural cause. If anything, the situation is far more complex, with there being multiple causes and the descriptions of the health care profession being absolutely clueless is biased, wrong, and harmful in that it will dissuade people from counseling and professional assistance in favor of community. This article packs a lot of information, but needs to be taken back a step and have the issue analyzed from an neutral point of view, point out the current state of (varying) opinion of the scientific community profession, and what the theorized causes are in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.144.99 (talk) 12:18, February 8, 2008