Talk:Trans man

Archives
Talk:Transman/Archive1

New section: terminology

I think most of the argument about what should and what should not be part of the transman identity, comes from the fact that there are two completely different identities (tanssexual man and transgender man) referred to as transman. Thus I tried to put a section that clarifies the differences between the two. Critics is welcome. Thru the night 18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

External links to chat boards, blogs, and bookselling sites are normally not accepted on Wikipedia. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that some people want blogs and chat boards and so forth to be included in this article. I realize that this information is useful to some people, such as transmen and their families. However, a link to purchase books at Amazon.com is not an encyclopedic link. It's a commercial link. Pretty much the only article in all of Wikipedia which should have an external link to Amazon.com is the article about the business itself. If you want to list the books, then please figure out how to list them without the links to Amazon.com.

Additionally, the personal webpage section is specifically prohibited under the external links policy. If you will look at item #12 under the "Links normally to be avoided" section, you'll see that it says, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" should not be included except under exceptional circumstances. There is no way to revise a link to a blog or a personal web page that will make it quit being a blog or a personal web page. These are "helpful to patients" kinds of links, not "encyclopedic" links. Wikipedia only includes encyclopedic links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed other articles sometimes have a "Further reading" section. Perhaps one of those could be created and the books could be listed there without needing to be a link. Neitherday (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to a "Further reading" section for books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all I have seen many articles (including the featured ones) that use links to Amazon. You can see Amazon as a commercial site, or you can see it as a source of information: it tells you when and where the book was published. But my main point was not even that particular list: If the rules are so important to you, then imply them to existing content. I definitely object the situation when you just DELETE the content that doesn't follow some rule. Advice to review it, review it, or put it in discussion area with explanation what needs to be done about it. DO NOT delete it. And for personal pages section: though I agree that some of the pages can be removed, as they are personal ads more then anything else, others are very good, for instance "Successful TransMen: Links and Photos" and "Why Don't you Tell Them I'm a Boy] Article on raising a gender non-conforming child by Florence Dillon. A mother's experience raising a transgender (FTM) son." are not. Again: it's so easy to delete some content. It's much more difficult to edit it and make it valuable. Thru The Night (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked transmen moved here

Lucas Silveira is not a trans man. He is a borned man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.197.15 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The following are the transmen from "List of notable transmen" who are redlinked; meaning that there is not an article written about them. There is a great opportunity here to create articles on these transmen if you can assert their notability. Joie de Vivre 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• River Allan, activist, public speaker, photographer, subject of documentary "CurrentTV's River"
• Spencer Bergstadt, attorney
• Kylar Broadus, attorney
• Mauro Isaac Cabral, educator [1][2]
• Jacob Hale, philosopher [3]
• David Harrison, actor, performer and playwright[4]
• Michael M. Hernandez, writer and activist
• Zander Keig, Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer [5]
• Blaine Paxton Hill, physics [6]
• Martin Rawlings-Fein, editor, writer, filmmaker [7] and activist [8]
• Mark Rees, activist
• Stephen Thorne, police officer
• Daniel Van Oosterwijck, attorney
• Jacob Nash, activist, educator, In Re Nash (Ohio courts)
• Raven Kaldera, shaman & writer [9]
• Mark Angelo Cummings, speaker [10]
• Gavin Katz-Athens Boys Choir, trans activist, poet, spoken word performer
• Scott Turner Schoefield, trans activist, actor, author, performance artist
• Dhillon Khosla, musician, author of "Both Sides Now"

more red linked names Thru the night (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, can transmans get bald?(for example by treatments like hormone replacement therapy)

yes MykellM (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Title

The text (correctly) uses 'trans man' (with a space). I'd like to put a space in the title, too. In the absence of discussion, I'll do this in a day or too. (See also the 'transwoman' article (and the comment I left there), which needs much work work on this point.) Dchudz (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a recent change that I reverted. I don't think there is concensus for these changes but perhaps looking at what the majot transmen organization use would help here. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what usage is most common in organizations for trans folk. I don't know how relevant this is here, but what matters to me personally is that if I try to find out what trans folk have to say about "transman" or "transwomen"(Google will turn up the same things for you as for me, so I won't link anything), I find arguments (which make sense to me) that the lack of a space is offensive. It seems like anyone who's thought about whether to put the space in or not wants the space. Dchudz (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be different for transmen and transwomen. In either case we should look to reliable sources to lead the way. I'll think more on it but I'm not keen on changing without good reason. -- Banjeboi 10:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While personally, the lack of a space rubs me the wrong way, I agree that we have to go with what we can back up with reliable sources and not what is inoffensive. SparsityProblem (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the last sentence of WP:CENSOR? BassoProfundo (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I am currently changing "transwoman" to "trans woman" throughout Wikipedia according to the discussion at Talk:Transwoman, and I am doing the same for "transman" where I find it on the same pages. Any objections to the "trans man" usage (rather than just objections to changing anything)? BassoProfundo (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Instead of just applying one preference rather than what we have project-wide, why not actually present some reliable sourcing to support which is the most encyclopedic to use. Your preference might be the right way to go but with no verifiable reasons there no reason the next person can't come along in two months and change everything back with the same preference reasoning. Please discuss first and see if an informed discussion leads to consensus. -- Banjeboi 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The changes have little to do with my personal preference, and much to do with the combined personal preferences of various trans people who have posted directly and linked to posts at Talk:Transwoman. As far as I am aware, no such objections to "trans man" exist. BassoProfundo (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My hunch is we should focus on the Talk:Transwoman page then since that's where the changes are mainly focussed. If we find something useful there that applies to this page we can certainly use it. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There shouldn't be any reason why one term would not parallel the other, so we'll keep the discussion over there. BassoProfundo (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't agree the terms are or are not parallel, they might be but they also could have no bearing on each other. If we find compelling reasons to use transman IMHO that does not equate that transwoman is preferred. -- Banjeboi 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Assigned" gender?

I'm far from familiar with the subject, but is the term transman applied only to those who were born with ambiguous genitalia, and underwent surgery to make their genitalia appear more female? If not, then the lede contains some pretty POV terminology, such as "assigned to actual". One's "actual" gender is determined by one's chromosomes, and the myriad combinations thereof. The terminology seems to suggest then that a transman is someone who was born male, had female genitalia surgically created, and feels male. This seems to be a rather small subset of the population. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to that question is a No. Most trans men were born with a medically "normal" vulva and vagina, normal uterus and ovaries, etc. Most of them were therefore judged, as newborns, to have a "female" body. This is the assignment of sex: associating a particular body configuration with a particular label like "female." (As the related article notes, that assignment is a social judgment as much as a biological one.) Because of their bodies, they were reared/raised as girls/women, but later grew to realize that they identified with the male gender rather than the female. Is that more or less comprehensible? I'm choosing my words very carefully here -- it's fallacious to talk about "a female body" or "male genitalia" per se, because at least to some extent, bodies' fe/maleness is socioculturally as well as biologically determined. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I follow to an extent. Are we talking about people who have some chromosomal combination other than strict XX or XY? Gender assignment is a medical term. I won't beat around the bush here: By saying that transmen transition from an "assigned to actual" gender, it appears the lede is trying to legitimize something that needs no legitimization, only description. The article should not be about whether or not it is "ok" to be trans, but rather what the phenomonon is. That's what I mean when I say it's POV. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've editted the article to remove some of these problematic words, as well as for some general tidy-up. Let me know what you think. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lede back generally, we can't infer all transmen were born with female genitalia. If someone else states that we can cite what they state but frankly that is a problematic general statement although I agree there may be a better way to express this. With many intersex people they are born with ambiguous genitalia and are indeed assigned one sex or the others. This is not always known to the child until they are much older. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and there are many high-profile cases that demonstrate the point you're making. My concern, however, is the OR/POV assertion that a gender is "assigned" to someone with definite genitalia. I wish to avoid the perception that the article justifies the condition, rather than merely describing it. I'll review your edits and reply further. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from my previous concerns, the only issues I can see are style-related. Can you think of a way to address my concern without excluding those born with indefinite genitalia? How about "born with female or indefinite genitalia"? I shy away from justifying it, as we're talking about a psychobiological condition, with no moral implications.Throwaway85 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look at Intersexuality and see if something there may help as well. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I simply can't understand why the idea that gender is assigned is an "OR/POV" assertion. When an infant is born, a person makes a judgment as to whether they believe that infant's sex is female or male. To set up a dichotomy between "definite" and "indefinite" genitalia, and claim that there is objective truth, independent of an observer, about the gender of infants in the "definite" category, is what's "POV". I can't see how it's controversial to make the neutral statement that a particular individual (or class thereof) were assigned a particular gender at birth. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs such as yours, that gender is assigned rather than evident, are far from mainstream. You may view them as respectful, accurate, or what have you, but they are still a minority view. I'm sorry if you find it "POV" to state that people are born with definite or indefinite genitalia, and born with a definite chromosomal gender "XX or XY", or indefinite "XXY, XYX, XYY, etc". My goal is not to offend, but rather to reflect reality. Similarly, to adopt a minority view while dismissing the majority as "POV" is problematic and unencylopedic. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're using the same definition of "POV" here. Whether a view is minority or majority is irrelevant to whether it's POV. Can you explain, again, what is POV about the assertion that when an infant is born, an observer typically examines the infant and determines the infant's apparent sex based on its visual appearance? SparsityProblem (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There's nothing at all POV about that assertion. What is POV, however, is the claim that a person with female genitalia and XX chromosomes will feel the need to transition from their "assigned" gender of female to their "actual" gender of male. This implies that gender has no biological basis, and is instead determined by how someone feels. This is highly problematic. I'm a white man. If I claimed to be a black woman, I would have a lot of arguing ahead of me in order to convince someone that I am, in fact, a black woman. Things like gender and race are biologically determined. The only way one can be "assigned" a particular genotype is if one believes in a god. Needless to say, that's a belief that cannot form the basis of an encyclopedic argument. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Going forward

“

a person who was assigned female gender at birth, but who feels that this is not an accurate or complete description of themselves and consequently identifies as male.

”

Above is the current wording, I've bolded the phrase that sounds liek it could be improved. Without digressing further into what is OR and POV perhaps we could work to add something NPOV like a person who was assigned or assumed to be female gender at birth might work? Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 14:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "appeared to be female"? I'm also okay with simply "assumed to be female", without the problematic assigned clause. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well assigned remains accurate, that's part of the point, the infant and likely the parents didn't pick a gender, a doctor did. Let's see if anyone else has input and we can ask for insight from some of the relevant wikiprojects. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the gender was picked when the sperm, carrying either an x or y chromosome, fertilized the egg, carrying an x. This is kind of beyond debate. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're aware we're discussing cases of ambiguous genitalia rather than just a male-female gender-binary concept. We both seek language that is neutral yet helps our readers understand the subject, I still believe this is possible. 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't beyond debate at all. I imagine most modern gender studies theorists, sociologists, and even doctors would disagree with you there. You're equating the assignment of gender (a social label) with the development of sex (a bodily state). —Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I had actually been told the opposite, which is why I raised the objection. In cases of sexual ambiguity, it has historically been the case that someone is assigned, usually surgically, a particular gender, and there is a very real medical phenomenon there. The case I am talking about, however, is where a person with XX chromosomes and unambiguous female genitalia feels they were "assigned" the female gender in error. I'm quite aware that gender is not a binary phenomenon, despite our language concerning it. There's a big difference in my mind, however, between saying someone with ambiguous genitalia and possibly non-XX chromosomes is assigned the female gender, and saying someone who is biologically female is "assigned" said gender. It muddies the language surrounding the issue, and lumps together two disparate groups into one. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about where your offense lies here, and I think it might originate from a misunderstanding of the connotations of the term "assigned." "Assigned the female gender" is, on my reading, no more or less POV than saying "was assumed to be of the female gender"; the two phrases are analogous in meaning, and I'm not really seeing why you (Throwaway85) have objections to the first but not the second. When the word "assigned" is used in a sex/gender context, there is no implication that the assignment was wrong (or that it was right, either). Everybody's assigned a gender, or assumed to be a member of a gender, if you like. Margaret Thatcher was assigned into the female gender at birth, and she agreed with that assignation. Billy Tipton was assigned into the female gender at birth, and later on in life, he rejected that assignation. I don't see how these statements would be any different if I changed "assigned" to "assumed"/"assignation" to "assumption" ... or why the former would offend you and appear POV, but you'd be fine with the latter. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I take no offense to anything. I object, however, to the patently false assertion that a doctor determines one's gender. I realise that people may feel that their anatomy does not reflect their identity, but that doesn't mean they were "assigned" a gender, it simply means they don't identify with the gender they physically resemble. Thus I have no problem saying someone is assumed to be of a particular gender, but have a big problem saying they were "assigned" the wrong gender. I hope that helps clarify my position. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Change

I changed the lede to read "a person who was identified as female at birth". It is my hope that this is acceptable to everyone. Let me know what you think. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

This article needs info on why these people get to be such. Why do they identify themselves as men trapped in women's bodies?? This article talks about people of this kind, but it does not talk about why people of this kind exist. Georgia guy (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not very many trans men identify as "men trapped in women's bodies." That's a transphobic trope used by cis people to demean trans people.

Moreover, the page on Cissexual doesn't discuss how some people come to identify as having a sex and gender that matches the sex and gender they were arbitrarily assigned at birth. I would reckon that in both cases, the missing information is missing due to WP:NOR. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus in the scientific community. The debate is a hot-button issue right now in psychiatry as the DSM-V is being written. Despite some studies suggesting that the brains of many transpeople have sexually dimorphic characteristics opposite their physical sex (and congruent with their gender identity), the research isn't yet broad enough to draw a formal conclusion.--Transpuppy (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Logic Gap

The sentences, "The term "trans man" is used as a short form for either identity (transsexual man and transgender man).[4] Trans men may identify as transsexual, as transgender, neither, or both," create an illogical conclusion. A term which which is narrowly "used as a short form" for "either," of two other terms cannot then be defined as meaning one of those other terms, the other, and at the same time, "neither, or both." The addition of "neither, or both," disqualifies the term from definition. If it can mean, "neither," it can mean anything other than the two terms it is able to represent.

What is at question is, what is the common usage of the term? Is the term generally restricted to transsexual and transgender males? If so, it cannot mean, "neither," of these terms. If there are other common usages of the term, then a disambiguation is required with explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.64.244 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point. In my opinion, "trans" has an inclusive meaning that can encompass people who identify as gender-variant but who find that neither "transsexual" nor "transgender" applies to them, but I do not have sources right now. It would be good if someone added them. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

swap with redirect

• Transman is the more common usage, not trans man. Can we get the redirect swapped? Nicoleta (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  There's no Wikipedia guideline as far as I know that says the more common usage has to be the one that is the target of the redirect. Moreover, I'm not sure what evidence you have that "transman" is the more common usage (and no, google hits don't count).

  I have to admit some bias, since as a trans man, I find "transman" a dehumanizing and othering term (we don't write "blackman", "Jewishman", or "disabledman", after all). But leaving that aside, I see no reason to fix something that isn't broken SparsityProblem (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, there's a very very long discussion on the trans woman talkpage about it. Nicoleta (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Having skimmed the discussion, I think it's more evidence for "why fix what ain't broken?" I agree with what User:BassoProfundo said there: "It's not at all accurate to say that there are 'equally compelling reasons' for either usage. On one hand, we have a word that a great number of trans people see as a qualification placed on their gender identity. On the other hand, we have a word that is, as far as I am aware, entirely inoffensive — literally the only objection raised here has been a supposed lack of compelling reason to make the change." (For clarity, BassoProfundo was saying that "trans woman" was entirely inoffensive, and "transwoman" was a word that many people see as a qualification placed on their gender identity.) Again, in terms of Wikipedia policies, what compelling reason is there to make the change you're suggesting? SparsityProblem (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• If we reference the GLAAD Media Reference Guide dated 2010 (the most recent publication) we find that the recommendation is to use the terms "transgender man" and "transgender woman" in all instances where the individuals preferred terminology is not known. Lacking some other source and recognizing the lack of consensus in the community itself, I would suggest the GLAAD reference have authority here. --Transpuppy (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous title

I clicked "Female-to-Male" link, and was redirected here? Who decided this was the best title? Is this what the clinical name is? Trans man? Sounds like a superhero. Or at least, a weird offspring of a transformer and a superhero. Or a superhero transformer. "Relax, citizen, for I am Trans Man, I shall save you!" --Buddy13 (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

all your questions may be answered by simply reading the article instead of reacting to the title. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The word "trans man" is simply a combination of "trans" (short for transsexual or transgender) and "man". See how that works? Vis-a-visconti (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm completely retarded and I don't know where the term came from, duh. But the slang term isn't the proper term. If I type in "butt crabs" (which I just made up and may or may not be real) I expect to be taken to the clinical name, not some silly colloquial name. --Buddy13 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have a verifiable source that shows what the "proper term" is (rather than your own opinion, which does not constitute a reliable source), then feel free to improve the article. Otherwise, why not complain about Functor instead? That's a pretty silly-sounding word, after all, it sounds like something completely different than a mathematical object. And let's not even get started on homomorphism. SparsityProblem (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If we reference the GLAAD Media Reference Guide dated 2010 (the most recent publication) we find that the recommendation is to use the terms "transgender man" and "transgender woman" in all instances where the individuals preferred terminology is not known. Lacking some other source and recognizing the lack of consensus in the community itself, I would suggest the GLAAD reference is a verifiable source that outlines what is thought to be the current proper terminology. Given that this guide is provided to journalists and media outlets as "the final say", I see no reason it shouldn't also guide Wikipedia's usage. --Transpuppy (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many transsexuals (or people of transsexual experience) who do not identify as transgender, or would even be offended by being referred to as transgender. If the article titles are changed to "Transgender man" and "Transgender woman", many people who identify as TS-not-TG would not be included and in effect be erased. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- not everybody who has a transsexual body is transgender. "Trans" is the best term to use since it encompasses both transgender and transsexual people; not all transgender people are transsexual (have transsexual bodies), and not all people with transsexual bodies are transgender. If the article claimed otherwise, that would be POV. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Trans can certainly honor both perspectives. I was merely seeking to provide a reliable source for one possible terminology. --Transpuppy (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the need for an "expert" on the Trans man page

For the purposes of this article, what denotes an expert?--Transpuppy (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)