Talk:Voice feminization

Term Vs Method

VoiceOfOne 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) "Voice Feminization" is a term or a 'description' of what that term means. In this case I belive I am correct in thinking that it should be used in the sense of 'terminology' and not a method. A method is a means of obtaining something and the article should address the methods used...

Then find a better way to express it -- claiming that only transwomen use the term is absurd. Equally absurd is it to claim that only "transsexual women" use VF - there is a reason, you know, that "transwoman" is used instead of "transsexual women" or worse, "male-to-female transsexuals". And the term "genetic (fe)male" is also hardly correct, which is why I replaced it. Merely changing it back is not a good idea. You might want to check the relevant articles. You might also want to copyedit what you write -- too many Capital letters, too many "isn't" and similar; not to forget that the overall tone still sounds like an advise column; this here is an encyclopedia. Also, you would want to source several statements; there is not a single reference in the article. And kindly stop labeling it as a stub, obviously it is not. -- AlexR 05:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I started the article yesterday, I expected that it would be a while before anyone actually did anything with it. I admit I am slow, but I will not fight. Please look at the history. I am unaware what 'copyedit' is - I am not a professional writer, just someone who added an article. I did not label it stub. I will not remove the Stub. I will continue to work the article as time permits, and listen to suggestions, even if they make me feel like I am being attacked and worthless. I am willing to learn and hope that you will continue to help me in whatever way floats your boat. If you would please let me know what should be sourced, I will attempt to understand how to do that and to add a source. Please understand, that I am new to wikipedia and I am still learning the wiki-mark-up-language. VoiceOfOne 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, no reason to fight about it. I think it's a fine article so far, and will continue to grow. Alex, if you had a problem with the 'stub' label, why not remove it yourself? Czolgolz 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. With your encouragement, I fell like making it grow, instead of just deleting it and letting someone else do whatever they want. VoiceOfOne 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I did remove the stub notice - it was restored. I would also kindly ask that you stop reverting "transwomen" back to "transsexuals". First of all, "transsexuals" is impolite - it should be, if it were appropriate here, "transsexual people". It is, however, not appropriate -- first of all, not only transsexual, but also non-ts-transgender woman do it, and second, transmen do not need it. Since that has been reverted a few times, I can hardly assume that this has been done in good faith or with a clue. One at least is missing here. Same goes for cis(wo)man. I don't give a bloody damn whether you are familiar with the term or not, or whehter you expect others to know it -- the explanation is just one click away. "Genetic (wo)man" is a non-sense term, and plain (wo)man is an insult to transpeople, because it implies that they are not (wo)men.

As for crying "but I am new here" -- well, let's say that those articles, just as all articles concering either sex/gender, religion, or politics, see not only a lot of vandalism, but also a lot of edits of people who may be well-meaning, but not necessarily either well-informed or able to write appropriately for an encyclopedia. Now, most editors are quite willing to copyedit articles, but if inappropriate, insulting and plainly incorrect bits are restored after they have been edited out, I must say that I (and most people who edit here) can't really assume that this was done in good faith. The reaction, then, is accordingly. And don't get this wrong, either -- as I said, you have stepped into Wikipedia with articles that usually generate heat. That does not mean that your efforts are not appreciated -- just accept the fact that there is no such thing as "your" article, or that other people will refrain not from editing it, no matter how new you are. Everybodies edits are re-edited, everywhere. That is the Wikipedia principle. You will need to learn to live with it.

This goes particularly for threats of "deleting" -- neither can you, nor should you delete the article. But don't complain if other people edit the article as well -- if that is something you cannot stand, then I am affraid that Wikipedia is not a place where you will feel comfortable. On the other hand, since that is exactly what makes Wikipedia so good, I think you should give it a try. -- AlexR 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

TERM vs METHOD - and the answer is?

Term ... In terminology (the study of language terms), a "term" is a word, word pair, or word group, that is used in specific contexts for a specific meaning. ...

Method ...In science in general, method is a codified series of steps taken to complete a certain task or to reach a certain objective , see also algorithm, methodology.

Is 'Voice Feminization' a term or a method or both?

If I said " ... the method of Voice Feminization is as follows..." it would work

If I said " ... the term Voice Feminization is used by ..." it would also work.

There indeed are several methods used to aquire a female voice, but each of the methods has there own term applied to that method. For instance to aid in the prosody used by a natal-female you could use 'baby talk' as your method. Then I could say " ... the method of 'baby talk' is one of the methods of Voice Feminization ..." and it would be true.

So is it a term or a method? or both?

VoiceOfOne 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The edits were not because of this question, but because the original edit said "Voice Feminization is a term usually used by transwomen ...". Obviously, this is nonsense, since not just transwomen use this word. Since there is also little reason to say who uses this word (because there is nothing notable there), that sentence needed some editing badly. I am sure, though, that there are better resolutions. Just make sure you don't say anything you actually don't want to say, as was probably the case with the first version. -- AlexR 16:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I changed the first 'transwomen' to 'transsexual' just so there'll be a link to that article. All other 'transwomen' stayed the same. Czolgolz 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, I have reverted -- and the arguments for that are above. Any reason in particular you choose to ignore that? -- AlexR 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cisgender

Okay, so what's with the 'cis'? I've been active in the transgender community for fifteen years, and while I'm no expert, I've never heard that term once. What's wrong with simply saying man or woman? This article didn't exist two days ago, and you seem to insist that it go your way only. I call for a vote. Who says that we should use the words 'man' and 'woman' when referring to someone who is genetically male or female? Czolgolz 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is a political term used by some of our community to try and turn the negative term to a positive term. Similar to saying non-female for male - it puts the term male as one-down. When I saw it, I first thought it was a mis-spelling, and cut and paste it into the search. Low and behold - it was a real thing. The fact that neither you nor I know what it means is an indication that if it is used . . . ciswoman (genetic female)... would at least make it self contained. VoiceOfOne 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

CISGENDER May be correct, but CISman and CISwoman are not used at all in Wikipedia, except for this article - Correcting to something more common. FemVoice 22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, naturally -- they are used, and both are a redirect to cisgender. Plain "woman" and "man" is incorrect, because obviously some women's mouth, namely transwomen's, is not on the average smaller etc. Hence your edit is factually incorrect. I also have no idea why you insist on this changes (except, maybe, to start a few more edit wars), but no transwoman and no transman in my aquaintance (and that is extensive) likes non-trans people plainly described as plain "men" and "women", because it implies that transpeople are not "men" or "women". You are setting up a difference between "transwomen" and "women", implying clearly that transwomen are not women, and most transwomen would very much protest that (transmen just the same). -- AlexR 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously if you did your research you would see that the ciswoman and cisman are not used.

• Google search - Results 1 - 10 of about 114 for ciswoman.
• Google search - Results 1 - 10 of about 12,100 for cisman. (cisman is an Indian surname).
• Google search - Results 1 - 10 of about 722 for cisgender.

• Google search - Results 1 - 10 of about 67 from en.wikipedia.org for cisgender.
• Google search - Results 1 - 1 of about 2 from en.wikipedia.org for ciswoman.
• Google search - Results 1 - 2 of 2 from en.wikipedia.org for cisman.

cisman, ciswoman, cisgender are not even in the dictionary. And cisman and ciswoman are not even used in cisgender. If they had a definition or usage, I might consider them as an option. cisgender was coined around 1995 and is obscure at best. Even in cisgender it states "The word is rarely used by people outside communities concerned with transgender issues". That does not mean that it must be used in this article. cisman, ciswoman create confusion and seem to be politically motivated instead of being easy to read. If you intent is to obfuscate the meaning of the information then that will have succeeded. The changes were made to clarify the paragraph, but I will take a moment to think how it can be re-written so that it maintains factually correct information withouth causing confusion. Until then I will let the phrases stand as the article is unreadable as a whole anyway. FemVoice 11:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ciswoman is insultive to M2F-Transsexuals

AlexR, I checked for ciswoman, cisman and cisgender are not in

[Merriam-Webster Online] or[Dictionary.com]. I have found several uses of the word, but can not find a definition. Ciswoman is especially problematic as it is impolite to refer to people by what they are not, and especially insulting to those of us who hold the belief that once we have completely transitioned that the term woman, not transwoman or woman in transition, will apply to us. I personally do not find either man or woman insulting to use, but I would be insulted if someone referred to me as a ciswoman as it is too close to 'sissy-woman' in sound which I hope even you could understand is an insult to a M2F-Transsexual.

Complete and utter nonsense: First of all, the word defining cis-people as something they are not is "non-trans", not "cis" - it was coined precisely because defining somebody as something they are not is insulting. They are cis, though. Also, you may believe that you are just a "woman", but when one has to distinguish between those born with a female body and those that were not, obviously one has to use some indicator. Also, regardint the "cissy" thing - that is an absurd reasoning. Somebody who wishes to willfully misunderstand that, will willfully misunderstand everything. "trans" and "cis" are latin prefixes which have absolutely nothing to do with "sissy". Also, how can ciswoman be insulting for transwomen, since it describes what transwoman are not?

As you pointed out both cisman and ciswoman are redirected to cisgender. Redirection usually means that they have the same meaning, or if not then they will be defined in the redirection such than anyone of moderate intelligence can understand the definition. Since they are not defined in cisgender it can be presumed that they are the same (understandably incorrect). Therefore, the sentence in question could be re-written to say A cisgender, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cisgender. Hence your edit is factually incorrect and nonsensical.

Another nonsense: The page does describe what cisgender people are, hence it is not exactly difficult to understand the terms. If you find something missing in cisgender, add it, but stop changing the article into something not understandable and insulting to every transperson.

If you truly believe that you have an authoritative sources that can convince me otherwise about ciswoman, a word that has only one occurrence that is publicly available via a search engine, please provide your authoritative sources'.

The word exists, check google. And I don't have to give sources for removing insults and inaccuracies, either. -- AlexR 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have checked google using this search "ciswoman site:en.wikipedia.org" and the word does not exist. FemVoice 15:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no inaccuracy is saying that a female voice is generally higher than a male voice. FemVoice 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is confusion in saying a ciswomans voice is generally higher than a cismans voice. FemVoice 15:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As you say you do not have to give sources for removing insults and inaccuracies. But you do have to follow the rules set down by WikipediaFemVoice 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with you in good faith hoping that you are a rational and caring individual, and all I have received in return is insults, refusal to provide any sources and links, and sardonic comments. FemVoice 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I run a website with a lot of use by people in transition, but I seldom see the words cisgender, ciswomen or cismen. Those terms are used by a very narrow group, apparently, and tend to cause controversy and confusion where used. They don't belong in this article because they are essentially political terms, used for political purposes. I think some attitudes here are indicative of something. Halfelven

I may be mistaken, but this page appears to be a topic that is of interest to the TransGendered and more specifically TransWomen. Although we do not mind a helping hand in editing and composition, I believe that as a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the province of various subcultures. I believe that all reasonable administrators of this namespace would agree to that statement. I also believe that since most of these administrators would agree that Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something "makes no sense" or is limited to a subculture … is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. And since I am a M2F-Transsexual with a degree of expertise in trained other M2F-Transsexual in Voice Feminization at TG gatherings, I believe that I would be a better judge of what material should and should not be in an article on a subject that I have experienced. This is why I placed the sentence about Melanie Anne Phillips at the beginning, because she offered the first training in Voice Feminization. The ranking of whom has the best program, training or therapy is a matter of opinion and not a subject that I feel should be covered in an article. Who had the first offered program to M2F-Transsexuals is not a matter of dispute. And when you moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph you made it sound awkward going from voice surgery to a self-help program.

Well, the old version claimed that she invented all of those methods, which I think you don't want to claim. If you want to claim that, source it. And as for "I did it, therefore I am an expert" -- sorry, this is nonsense. The experiences of one person alone are never, unless for their biography, a sufficient source for anything. Certainly the fact that you had VF (I assume) does not give you any right to make this article into something not understandable, as you are persistantly trying to do. Not that those matters have anything to do with the fact that you had it, either. And, I might mention, claiming that this person was the very first may be right for the USA, but hardly for the rest of the world.

As for the "not making sense" -- certainly I would object that articles are excluded for this reason (unless they don't make any sense, but see the Policy for that). However, nobody anywhere has so far asked that this articles is to be excluded, so what are you talking about? -- AlexR 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means be bold when helping with this article. But please remember that this is an article that is fairly complex and as it stands right now can be considered a stub.

Finally, for a review;

• I explained that I have searched for cis* and have not found them in any online dictionary, even Wiktionary
• I explained to you part of the logic behind not using cis* as they stand in the article and that is insultive to do so and why.
• I asked you for authoritative sources
• I explained that while we welcome your edits and help, to please be more considerate and thoughtful of what you are doing (I am)
• and lastly please expand the article with additional information as it is truly a stub of what it should be for Wikipedia.

FemVoice 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is editing an article really considered vandalism, Alex R? I'm calling in opinions from other sources. At any rate, I thought the point of these articles was to explain things. It seems that not too many people, even those within the community, are familiar with cis terms. If we must use them, why not explain what they mean? Someone unfamiliar with transgenerism might not know the terms cisman or transwoman and might not be interested enough to research.Czolgolz 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Modified first sentence

Voice Feminization has been used in the Transgender community to refer to an outcome and not a method or even a set of methods. Since the outcome can be from surgery, therapy or self-help it can not be thought of as a method. Granted, there are several methods used to achive the outcome, for instance surgery is a method used to achieve the goal of voice feminization, but it is not a method.FemVoice 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So, you are back -- and that after all this ranting about leaving? Well, I sure hope your style has changed, otherwise, you will see the arbitration (and everything that comes before it) a lot sooner than you might want to.

As for the changes - I put the bit about this “Melanie Anne Phillips” further down -- she is hardly the only person who developed such methods, or the only one who promotes them. Actually, unless there is something substantiating her inclusion into this article, like a link or a few more sentences, I see no reason why her name should be included at all. -- AlexR 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My, you have so little knowledge about the history of voice feminization. Melanie Anne Phillips was the first person to have any techniques to help our community. I added the link as per your request. FemVoice 11:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking about dividing the article up into sections

After looking at the small beginning here, I think that dividing up the article into different sections according to the discipline that actually performs the voice feminization. And some other sections to describe the process in general and does anybody have any other ideas on sections? Myths'? husky female voices? etc... Please let me know.

Speech pathologists

• Respiration - power source;
• Phonation - sound source;
• Resonance - sound modifier;
• Articulation - speech modifier;
• Prosody - melodic aspects of speech;

Pitch altering surgeries

Feminization laryngoplasty

Thyrohyoid approximation

Cricothyroid approximation

Laryngeal Reduction surgery

Voice Coaches

Self Help programs

Little things that help make a voice feminine

No discussion after a time

Making changes to move around information in overview and divide it up into two overall topics of surgical and vocal training. FemVoice 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board#Articles with disputes
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_law,_and_sex
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All

FemVoice 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no neologisms. And to avoid insulting anyone, using 'genetic female' should work just nicely, no? Bridesmill 22:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The debate over whether a technical term is appropriate or not, and especialls this one, happened a while ago already, and the consent was to use it. And "genetic women" is one of those decidedly inaccurate terms "cisgender" replaces -- namely, because of intersex people, who may not have XX chromosomes, but several of female sex characteristics. Or who may have XX chromosomes, but several male sex characteristics. Not to mention any possible gender identity. And not to mention that transmen happen to be genetic women, too, which can make the use of this term extremely confusing. I refer to cisgender for more arguments. -- AlexR 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you please provide a link to this conversation where ciswoman replaced woman since it is not searchable. And since in your above statement you say, "genetic women" is one of those decidedly inaccurate terms "cisgender" replaces, would you also comment on if "cisgender" replacing cisman, since both redirect to the same location.FemVoice 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now neologism is a word that I can appreciate

It would appear that AlexR refuses anything but ciswoman in the article.

20:00, 21 May 2006 + A genetic female has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
20:04, 21 May 2006 0 A genetic female has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
20:09, 21 May 2006 0 A genetic female has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
00:03, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
01:45, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman (Genetic Female), on the average, has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
03:59, 22 May 2006 0 A ciswoman (Genetic Female), on the average, has a smaller mouth
05:53, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
12:35, 22 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)

• (changed cismen to and cis women to men and women...the 'cis' term is unfamiliar to most people and not relavent to the article)

16:32, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)

• (revert - a) it's not just transsexual people, and certainly not the male half. And as for cis*, that is a link. Man and woman is insulting for transpeople)

16:46, 22 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)

• (I've known many transsexuals (and even dated one) and never knew anyone to be insulted by the word 'man' or 'woman')

17:11, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)

• (rvv)

17:55, 22 May 2006 (AlexR)

• (No, asshole, it is not just transsexuals - will you damn read what I wrote. Also, it is self-evident here what transwomen are)

22:32, 26 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (FemVoice)

• (ciswoman and cisman are not in common use - search of google indicated that ciswoman is not commonly used)

08:46, 27 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth

• (See talk page)

13:43, 27 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)

• ()

Current revision - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth

• (Revert from vandalism)

When it is pointed out in discussion that a search on google produces ONLY 1 hit (voice feminization) for ciswomen in the en.wikipedia.org namespace, it seems to be ignored. The fact that it is not used in the whole of wikipedia or even defined in cisgender is an indication that it is not a word. As to AlexR's claims that the definition is just one click away it is erroneous, since ciswoman is redirected to cisgender where it is not used or defined. In addition, if you look at the first entry in the list, AlexR did not link the page to this one, VoiceOfOne did.

When questioned about why this word should be used, AlexR always points to cisgender that does not use the word anywhere in the page. Any use of this word should turn up in a search of google in the namespace en.wikipedia.org. Since it does not and every attempt to reason with AlexR seems to illicit the response " Complete and utter nonsense", it seems that someone has asked for RFC.

The real question should be whether the reading of the sentence is understandable, or if it is questionable and confusing. Just the fact that the RFC exists is an indication that it is confusing.FemVoice 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for the RfC because you two insist making the article less understandable and definitely insulting to transwoman, even if one transwomen, namely, FemVoice, does not feel insulted by being called non-woman. (Well, obviously, since you insist that the only "women" are those born with the corrosponding body.) -- AlexR 17:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And Bridesmill suggested using genetic female. So are you willing to go along with that?FemVoice 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and an P.S: I am not going to read your rants any more; unless you can be succinct, I can be sure from past experiences that it is not worth reading. (And one could argue about the worthiness of your shorter comments, too.) And, I might add, such rants do not belong onto the talk pages of articles, so maybe you could take them elsewhere? -- AlexR 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you provided sources for anything I would not consider it poor opinion. The fact that you do not provide sources makes it poor and opinion. FemVoice 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And talk about cisgender does not belong here. If you have an issue with the use of woman and transwoman being in the same article go to Transwoman and alter it there. Or on any of the other 686 articles that use both of them together. FemVoice 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What's an RFC? And you seem to be the only one insulted by the use of 'man' and 'woman.' Czolgolz 17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RfC. And I am certainly not the only person objecting to such useage, maybe you could asked your alleged (and probably mythical) transgender frieds about it. Maybe I am just the only person who can be bothered to talk to two such ... people ... like you. -- AlexR 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe you really are the only one. I'd thank you not to call me a liar. Czolgolz 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you make such ridiculous statements and claim at the same time to know many transwomen, what is one to conclude? And your claim that all transpeople except me do consider transwomen not to be "women" and transmen not to be "men" is so ridiculous and insulting, it is rather hard to belive that you have ever met a transperson at all. -- AlexR 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, and maybe I am not as gender identified as you think, Alex?Bridesmill 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are you, and where have I made any assumption about your gender identity? -- AlexR 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I've commented here before and I have a user page. Your discussion above certainly implies that a. nobody else understands, and b. only the transgendered, nay, only transwomen understand; which is both patently false and making assumptions about the people you say 'don't understand'.Bridesmill 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Patent nonsense, I have never said that only transpeople can write about trans-matters, and neither do I imply that nobody understands; however, those two ... persons ... who insist that transwomen are not women certainly do not. -- AlexR 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ciswoman does not exist

I checked for ciswoman, cisman and cisgender in [Merriam-Webster Online] or [Dictionary.com] and found no entry for them in either of the online dictionaries.

Which just means they are not up-to-date. So? -- AlexR 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A search of google using ciswoman site:en.wikipedia.org turns up two occurrences of ciswoman. One in User_talk:Messedrocker and a second Voice_Feminization. Neither define the term, as such I have altered the sentence from

A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.

And changed it to

A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of man.

FemVoice 19:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it again, naturally, trying for a compromise. You are free to consider yourself not a "woman", although you claim otherwise, but Wikipedia articles will make no such insulting claims. -- AlexR 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexR, I don't comprimise. Not with something that is so easy to check as a simple search. So you will not have to read all of the talk again, I will sumerize.

I don't care at all about your searches, I do care, however, about the article being factually correct and not insulting. -- AlexR 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1. woman != ciswoman
2. cisgender woman = woman

Since that is what I have been saying the whole time, I have to congratulate you -- after several days, something penetrated your brain. You have, however, forgotten the 3rd line:

1. Transwoman = woman

Which is the reason you cannot use

1. woman = ciswoman

which you did until a few hours ago. -- AlexR 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you made the change like number 2, I did not change it back. 1 is wrong from all of the reading and search's I have performed and if you had changed from woman to ciswoman, I would have reverted it it to woman. FemVoice 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where I ever said a transwoman was not a real woman, I just object to using a term no one seems familiar with. That's a slippery slope argument Alex, that if I don't support you, I must not know anything about transwomen. Ironically, I logged on here to say I was fine with your recent edits, and would not longer be changing the article. Czolgolz 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Call for Armistice

I, Czolgolz, recognize that while we will probably never reach an agreement, I find Alex's current revision an acceptable compromise, and promise to cease all editing, excepting future grammar and additions.

I further declare, that while I disagree with the use of the term 'cisgender,' I understand that it is a sensitive subject. Like all subjects, no one, including myself, is an expert on all topics.

I formally declare that I consider transwomen to be women in every sense, and all my objections were due to semantics.

I call for us all to shake hands and move on to other, less controvertial debates, such as what is the one true religion.

Czolgolz 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Current word count of article

811 words 5,012 characters (no spaces) 5,794 characters (with spaces) ~111 lines.

FemVoice 04:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Before this article existed, I started an article on the same topic with the title "Voice therapy (trans)". I think the two articles should be merged as they focus on the same topic. However, I know this article has been edited by many people and subjected to great controversy, whereas only one other person has made a couple of minor changes to my article, and so I don't know that I should try to merge the pages myself. Well, feel free to discuss. Andrea Parton 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

These are two fine articles about essentially the same thing. I could go along with a merge, though it would have to be by a greater person than I. Czolgolz 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)