Talk:Transgender

Collected references

If you cite something. Place the main citation here and then a reference tag in the above. Keep this section the bottom. This way any references that are used can be easily found.

"To Family Members" Subsection of "Coming Out"

This section feels very colloquial and perhaps a bit on the personal side. The sources give examples of the phenomenon discussed, but the style does not feel encyclopedic. In addition, there is a specific section already devoted to Transgender issues involving "Coming Out" in the coming out article. Perhaps the two should be merged to keep all of the information together after some restyling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.20.32 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 16 June 2011

Origin of word transgender...

In summary...

The dispute seems to focus on a few points.

• Is the mention in TV guide a significant source and or use of the word / was it widely circulated enough to have cultural impact?
• Princes use is often cited as the coining of the word as "Transgenderal". Is it noteworthy that the word "transgendered" is used to describe a character that had a complete sex change only months after Prince used a similar word "transgenderal" a play on the word "Transsexual" intended to refrence crossdressers only. re: complete sex change -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066115
• Was the character transsexual or not? Does the dream sequence effect this? (in the movie at the end it turns out the whole movie was a dream. For the whole of the movie prior to the end though Myra Breckinridge was presented to the audience to be a post-op transsexual. The entire sex change surgery and the plot of the movie except for the last few minutes were a dream.. / This should possibly be compared to wizard of OZ does the implied dream state of the story of OZ somehow disqualify any cultural impact of the story and characters?) Quotes from the movie show the character had a complete sex change. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066115/quotes
• Is this indicative that the word may have been used interchangeably as an umbrella term from the start?
• Allegations of OR and Synth have been made.
• The original reversion stated in the reason "deleting references to "Myra Breckinridge" Gore Vidal's bizarro-world satire with hostile depictions of TS - DISCUSS FIRST PLEASE!"
• Subsequent re-reversion stated "Undid revision 465457063 by From Ariel (talk) - please cease these ridiculous Myra Breckinridge edits"
• Is the edit being disallowed due to opinion / dislike on the movie itself not on the merit of the words use and significance of this early use culturally?
• Is the use by TV Guide less significant then the other cited use by Virginia Prince in a far more limited distribution publication? Why would TV Guide a nationally syndicated publication to a wide demographic on the topic of TV and movies be less significant then Princes use?

From Ariel (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC) ________

I am more then a little upset that my revisions to the section origin of the word transgender were removed and in the comments of such undo I was told to "discuss first". I see nowhere in wikipedia where cited, referenced, provable, facts must be discussed before adding them. Had the person that undid my edits read the references and cites it would be obvious they are valid. Here is all of the discussion you will get. My changes were cited confirmable and referenceable. All of the required references and proofs were provided with the edits and this is a gross abuse to remove my changes. If you wanted discussion you should have requested it and left my edits intact.

I expect I will be asking for a review and an inquiry into my edits being undone and being TOLD, no ORDERED to discuss, factually provable, referenced and cited content before editing.

Further Booze your notes where you labeled The movie Myra Breckinridge as "bizarro" clearly shows your edit does not come from npov. You don't have to like the movie or it's content. When discussing the origin of the word Transgender the fact that TV Guide used the term "transgender" to refer to a transsexual in april 26 of 1970 clearly calls into question it's use and shows that from the very beginning it was an umbrella term. Prince was using a similar term "transgenderal" a play on "Transsexual" in 1969 and TV Guide was using "Transgender" before any written record of prince using the exact word.

Fact: Prince did not use Transgenderal in any confirmable source prior to her writing in 1969. To not clarify that she used Transgenderal not transgender is misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-ekinskingone-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-princevone-7

Fact: in April 1970 in TV guide a nationally circulated paper. Raquel Welches character "Myra Breckinridge" was referred to as Transgender.

"Raquel Welch (left), moviedom's sex queen soon to be seen as the heroine/hero star of Gore Vidal's transgendered "Myra Breckinridge," will be featured..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender&oldid=463478507#cite_note-TV_guide_april_1970-9

Fact: Myra Breckinridge was a Post-op Transsexual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender&oldid=463478507#cite_note-IMDB-10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Breckinridge_%28film%29

From Ariel (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're upset, From Ariel, but please note:

First, having an edit reverted on Wikipedia is not at all unusual, is a normal part of the Wikipedia "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle - WP:BRD - which many employ, and you're editing an article in a set of topics - trans* related topics - which are hyper-controversial.

The evolution of the term "transgender" is subject to a great deal of controversy among transgendered, transsexual, trans-whatever folk. E.g., please look over Cristan Williams' articles on the history of the term (The Rise of "Transgender") and the controversy (Transsexual not Transgender: A Paroxysm of Histrionics); the application of the term transgender to transsexuals and the implications thereof, in particular, has now become the focus of vociferous disputes in what some would call "the transgender community", from which others subsumed into that category ("separatist" transsexuals) wish to be freed.

The note that Victoria Prince used "transgenderal" is fine by me; referencing a TV Guide article using the term "transgender" in a vague TV-CRITIC style of expression to segue into a statement that the wholly fictional character (and IMO an obscene one, and I'm not hung up about sexual matters) "Myra Breckinridge whom -sic- was clearly a post-op transsexual" is wholly inappropriate, in my view, because it is 1) a citation of a non-notable source in this instance, because it was not historically influential in itself, and is irrelevant to the current use of the term, and 2) the novel and film portrayal of the character "Myra Breckinridge" is a really, really, appalling misrepresentation of the nature of transsexualism and motivations for transitioning (hint: this story is all about sex, sex, sex and revenge on men!). "Myra Breckinridge" is not "a Post-op Transsexual": "Myra Breckinridge" is a purely a product of the frenzied imagination of Gore Vidal - the story is advertised as a "satire", right?

To underscore this point, I'll quote from the Wikipedia article on Myra Breckinridge: "'It is tempting to argue that Vidal said more to subvert the dominant rules of sex and gender in Myra than is contained in a shelf of queer theory treatises,' wrote Dennis Altman." To my way of thinking, genuine transsexuality is not about "subverting" the dominant rules of gender… it's about a compelling desire to conform to the gender rules which are applied to the opposite sex, and so Vidal is engaging in a full-frontal assault on the very nature of the phenomenon, in my opinion.

Disclaimer: I'm TS, myself, and don't mind being referred to as "transgendered" though I tend to cavil at being labelled "transgender". Picky, no? (Typically picky: yes!) And yes, this is my legal name now: "Bonze Anne Rose Blayk" -- bonze blayk (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

______________________________

Again your reasons for disagreeing are completely opinion based and do not fall under NPOV. This is entirely because you do not like the film as was made clear in your reverts which call the film "bizaroo". You say that this film is not significant but even poorly written and executed it was significant because it breached and parodied several concepts that in the 70's were considered taboo. Keep in mind back then it was considered revolutionary that the Brady parents shared the same bed. It was courageous enough to make such a movie we can't expect it to be upto modern standards of understanding.

To quote from a persons comments on IMDB I think he neatly sums up why it was a movie that shook foundations especially because it parodied things often considered taboo at the time..

by HarlowMGM (Sun May 13 2007 21:14:07) "...A woman raping a man via a "strap on" - an old woman with a huge sexual appetite for young beefcake - an attractive transsexual able to seduce whom she pleases - an all-american girl flirting with bisexuality - an old white man who sleeps with black chicks and lusts after his nephew's widow (who turns out to be his nephew!)..."

Again I don't care if you like the movie or not it is a fact the actual word "transgender" was used only months after princes use of a similar word in a nationally syndicated publication read by millions of people. Myra Breckinridge was not CD she was TS. The dramatization of being transsexual may not have been correct or polite or made you happy but it does not change the fact that the word was used in an environ that exposed millions of people to the term in relation to a transsexual.

As far as significant source. We are talking about possibly the first actual use of transgender in a nationally published anything when describing a post-op transsexual. Whether you liked how they portrayed her or not, Myra was a post-op TS not CD hence this is significant showing it was already falling into parlance as a term for transsexuals. You expose millions of people to the word in that use it IS significant. A sideline blurb or not it was in the hands of millions in print. Add to that it was used to describe the picture of a Celebrity whom was on the cover of that issue. That is significant.

Prince didn't use "transgender" till far later (80's?) only sporadically using...

Transgenderal - A play on word - Transsexual - hence the - "al" in 69 through the 70's.

In the 70's black-sploitation movies were common too that does not mean you censor one of those movies from a wikipedia article because you don't like the light it casts people of color in either. If something significant and of note related to the movie happened you present it in a neutral point of view irregardless of your personal dislikes.

From Ariel (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

From Ariel - Please take note of the Wikipedia article on the movie Myra Breckinridge (film), rather than the reference to the book Myra Breckinridge that you wikilinked in your recent edits. It makes quite a difference, since it's clear that the passing use in a TV Guide blurb (which you seek to promote as causing some kind of profoundly influential Culture Shift! in the public's perception of "transsexuals" as being "transgender") is for a movie characterized as a "BOMB" (by Leonard Maltin), cited in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time, and which bombed with the public as well as with critics?

Your efforts here to apply WP:OR "Original Research" to claim this blurb is worth noting - because the movie itself is somehow "revolutionary"? (Huh?) - in this context are not at all persuasive.

And, in this movie almost no-one watched, thus revolutionizing… nothing? … ultimately?

"In 2004, Myra Breckinridge was released on DVD with minor changes—to make the film's ending (that Myra never had her sex change) clearer…" (from the Wikipedia article; italics mine).

— So: Myra Breckinridge is… ??? A fictional character… and not a "post-op TS". —

And… "Gore Vidal has disowned the film calling it 'an awful joke'". (FWIW: The book was a hit; also, I think Vidal is a great writer: YMWV.)

AND FINALLY in your edit you claim incorrectly that "in the April 1970 issue of TV guide 'transgender' was used to refer to the character Myra Breckinridge" - the blurb which you linked states: "Raquel Welch… star of Gore Vidal's transgendered 'Myra Breckinridge'". (Seriously: "transgendered", not "transgender": these terms are not the same.)

Anyway, I see no good reason to go into detail in this article on the convoluted history of the term "transgender", which did not evolve in any sense that makes sense, but has been one of those terms that's been used by different people with drastically different definitions. As Cristan Williams' articles show (cited above), this would comprise an entire article in and of itself… if it were actually notable? (And I don't even believe that it is.) - Sincerely, -- bonze blayk (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

bonze blayk your entire argument still comes down to you don't like the movie and disagree with it's quality / content. The quality and content of the movie does not mean that the word being referenced in view of millions of people in TV Guide of a gender variant / transsexual character is not valid. (no matter her personality) Sure the depiction is not accurate or PC but that is not the argument the depiction of the character was consistent with peoples limited exposure and awareness of how transsexuals actually were in 1970. Whats important is a significant source (mass publication to millions) used the term in regards to a transgender / gender varient / transsexual woman.

As far as is the character transsexual / transgendered let myra / myron explain that in dialog...?

Surgeon: You realize, once we cut it off, it won't grow back. I mean, it isn't like hair, or fingernails, or toenails, you know.

Myron: What do you think I am, some kind of idiot? I know that!

Surgeon: [shrugs] Eh - how about circumcision? It'd be cheaper.

Myron: Come on, come on, come on, let's get it over with, Myra's waiting!

Surgeon: [shrugs] We'll have to blow up your tits with silicone.

Myra: I am Myra Breckinridge, whom no man will ever possess. The new woman whose astonishing history started with a surgeon's scalpel, and will end... who-knows-where. Just as Eve was born from Adam's rib, so Myron died to give birth to Myra. Did Myron take his own life, you will ask? Yes, and no, is my answer. Beyond that, my lips are sealed. Let it suffice for me to say that Myron is... with me, and that I am the fulfillment of all his dreams.

The TV guide quote is significant and documented proof of the use of the word in common media and mass media in 1970 that is significant.

Lastly your claim of it not being the same word is the most ridiculous claim of them all and I invite you to goto Transgendered to see why.

I feel you have given zero justification (as I have) and I will restore my edit. The only thing you have convinced me of is you dislike the movie and I'm sorry that is not reason for excluding a citation to a notable (millions of subscribers) early documented use of the actual word in a section labeled "origin of the word..." It may even be the first use of the word in a venue seen by millions.

From Ariel (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From Ariel, you have provided absolutely no evidence that this inclusion of the term "transgender" (sic: "transgendered" ! bonze blayk (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)) in this brief blurb is in any way historically notable. Your WP:OR "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. I will revert this on every appearance, since you have not responded at all to the problems I have raised, and do not seem to take editing responsibilities seriously… keep this up, and I will report your activities here as abuse. -- bonze blayk (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

… I guess I should note that this is more a case of aggravated WP:SYNTH than pure WP:OR, since there are a couple of sources cited? But to establish that the use of the term "transgendered" here actually had any impact… well, it's just not supported anywhere that I can see (and believe me, I did look!).

So, From Ariel, I shall now quote from your initial post here in Talk:Transgender on this matter? "Here is all of the discussion you will get." -- bonze blayk (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

bonze blayk are you telling me that this was not published in tv guide despite actual confirmed scans of the cover?

Are you telling me that TV Guide is not a publication read by millions of people?

Are you trying to say that it was not describing a character that is a gender non-conformant / transsexual?

The only thing you have confirmed is you do not like the character or the movie.

I will be asking for arbitration on this as opposed to your attempt to settle this by bulling me by making wild claims of fabrication of information. This is a confirmable source (TV guide) and the dialog of the movie confirms the CHARACTER is transsexual and the quote was in reference to the character from the dialog of said movie. This is neither synth nor is it OR it is a confirmable fact..

https://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&nomo=1&biw=1001&bih=542&q=april+26+1970+tv+guide+transgender&oq=april+26+1970+tv+guide+transgender&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=90866l94371l0l94704l12l12l0l11l0l0l179l179l0.1l1l0

From Ariel (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi guys, I'm here from the 3O board. Sorry it took so long for someone to get here (these delays naturally happen in a place like Wikipedia). My view would be to leave out the TV Guide mention; the usage in the TV Guide blurb seems more like a nonce word than an attempt to coin a word to aid classification a group of people, and it coincidentally is similar to the word that became in use. My reasoning is as follows: first, the mention in TV Guide is relatively minor. It's used once in a caption blurb about an actress (not even about the movie that it involves). Second: it's not used as a noun, but as an adjective, and with a suffix that isn't usually seen today. Third (and most importantly): it's not describing the character, it's describing the movie. So, while the word itself looks similar, its usage is actually pretty different from the modern use of "transgender." So, on those grounds, I'd say leave it out.

Think of it this way: if someone who had never heard of the word "transgender" stumbled across that TV Guide entry, it wouldn't help them understand the word in use today. It's a minor reference, so it likely didn't have an impact on the actual development of the word, and is therefore of little or no historical interest, and the actual usage doesn't reflect the usage of the word now, so it has little or no illustrative benefit. Since it's not really helping the article, it's probably best to leave it out. I don't think it's egregiously OR or SYNTH to leave it in, but I just don't think it has a place in the article.

Finally, some friendly notes on the usual Wikipedia etiquette (none of these are aimed at anyone in particular):

• bold editing is encouraged (within reason), but once a change has been reverted, that's when discussion needs to take place. The addition of the material was fine and needed no discussion, but once it's been reverted or removed, discussion should take place and consensus should be reached before re-adding it.
• Yes, a scholarly article is usually given more weight than a more widely-circulated magazine; this is reflected in Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources.
• Care should be taken in using the word "notability" in a content dispute; in a Wikipedia context, notability is only important on deciding whether a subject should have its own article or not; the policy on notability does not apply to what should be included within an article, only whether or not it should exist.
• While OR, SYNTH, and POV editing does (of course) happen, we should be careful in claiming them in a content dispute. It can easily lead to personal attacks.

Thanks (and sorry for the verbosity)! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Writ Keeper Re is it the character or the movie the answer is yes as the title of the film is the main character...

"Raquel Welch moviedom's sex queen soon to be seen as the heroine/hero star of Gore Vidal's transgendered "Myra Breckinridge"

heroine/hero star of Gore Vidal's transgendered "Myra Breckinridge" kinda makes it both refrencing the movie and the character not the actress.

I do also disagree on transgendered as if you saw transgendered and then watched the movie which predominantly spends the entire movie focusing on a character whom apparently to the audience had a sex change until the movie is revealed to be a dream at the end of what might have been but wasn't much like wizard of oz..

lastly regarding "Second: it's not used as a noun, but as an adjective, and with a suffix that isn't usually seen today." "transgendered" is used 41,100,000 times according to google vs "transgender" 37,700,000

Google Ngram viewer also shows that transgendered is quickly becoming popular and common http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=transgender%2Ctransgendered&year_start=1940&year_end=2005&corpus=0&smoothing=0

From Ariel (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

This: "so that "gender" is used to describe the categorical male/female difference and "sex" is used to describe the physical act of sexual intercourse." is incorrect. It should read, ""gender" is used to describe male/female identities and "sex" is used to describe physical genitalia."

141.161.133.207 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your request, but the sentence, as stated, is true: "There is a substantial academic literature on the difference between sex and gender, but in pragmatic English, this distinction is often ignored, so that "gender" is used to describe the categorical male/female difference and "sex" is used to describe the physical act of sexual intercourse."

For example: forms, including forms used by physicians and psychologists (who really ought to know better!) use the word "gender" as a "non-sex(y)" term for "genital" "sex" (which isn't truly a binary to start with!).

As a transgendered person myself, this muddling of sense drove me up the wall for a long, long time: the distinction is obvious! How can you possibly confuse these? … until I eventually came to the conclusion that the reason the terms became conflated is because to a cisgendered person the distinction makes no sense at all. (That's WP:OR there, but I believe that's the cause, and why the distinction must be endlessly explained to average people.)

So, I'm very sorry about this… but unless and until educational efforts on the significance of the distinction have some impact on common usage, it's going to have to remain that way.

Thank you for your comment… Sincerely, -- bonze blayk (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken link (ref. 3)

Not broken, per se, but www.usilgbt.org seems to have been taken over by a domain squatter. Not sure what default procedure is in that case; I just thought I'd point it out. --79.218.29.67 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

i'm not sure what the procedure either; hopefully my wayback machine kludge is acceptable. It looks as if the original site owner let their website subscription lapsei the five years since it was put in the article, so it's a case of link rot. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)