Talk:Trans woman

Space in "trans woman"

While some may be happy with the terms 'trans-woman' or 'trans-man' others find the idea of being considered trans first and foremost deeply offensive as it strips away the persons humanity making them trans first and foremost. Over the last few years the compromise solution of using terms like: 'woman with a transsexual history' 'man with a transsexual history' 'woman with a transgender history' 'man with a transgender history' are becoming widely adopted because it pays far more respect to the persons gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.236 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But those terms are kind of wordy. Georgia guy (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Many trans people see the componding of 'transwoman' into one word as offensive. Including the space makes an important distinction between 'trans' as a modifier describing the word 'woman' vs. 'transwoman' being a gender in and of itself distinct from 'woman'. It's analogous to the term 'chinaman' being considered a very offensive perjorative, whereas 'chinese man' is merely a descriptor. I would propose a title change, adding in the space. At the very least, the significance of including the space needs to be mentioned in the Terminology section, or somewhere in the article; as it's seen as an important issue in the trans communityGenderhack (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a brief sentence outlining the issue in Terminology.Genderhack (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'd like to put a space in all of the usages, including the title. (In the absence of further discussion, I'll do this in another day or two.) Same over at the 'Transman' article. This is important: trans men are men, trans women are women. And yes, include something in 'terminology' about how it's common to not use the space, and why this is considered offensive. I'd like to know something about the history of the with-space/without-space usages, and if there's a good source, maybe that could be a good inclusion as well. Dchudz (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Julia Serano mentions the issue in her book Whipping Girl. I added a citation. You can check out this blog post as well. Genderhack (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with this at all. Transmen, in my experience don't care that much, Transwomen sure do. I think the lede can point out that both usages are fine but the rest of the article should stick with Transwoman until there is compelling reason not too. -- Banjeboi 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, in my experience, most of the trans women i know personally tend to care less about the distinction than most of the trans men that i know; frankly though, it doesn't matter. This isn't something that we're going to empirically verify; so the issue of "how many" people take offense shouldn't be the issue here. The issue is that omitting the space can lead to offense for legitimate reasons; whereas including the space is relatively easy to do, and offends nobody so far as i know. That in itself seems reason enough to make the change. Even if a majority of trans people i know self-identify with the term "tranny" as a positive term they have "taken back", it's still not appropriate in a wiki sense because it *does* offend *some* people.Genderhack (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is slow here, but it looks like consensus to me. I'm going to be bold and start changing some of these over to the neutral term. Let me know if there are any good reasons not to (which are not the same as ignorance of the reason *to* do so).

P.S. Are you there Genderhack whose name I recognize from... elsewhere? BassoProfundo (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (I assume by 'neutral term' you mean the phrase 'trans woman.') I want to point to the sentence "Even after transitioning, transwomen have biological differences from cisgender women" as highlighting the lack of a parallel between "transwomen" and "cisgender women." Dchudz (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I tried to go ahead and make the changes myself since it seemed like discussion had stagnated; but it appears my changes were reverted. And i agree with Dchudz, that quote should either read "Even after transitioning, trans women have biological differences from cis women" or "Even after transitioning, transgender women have biological differences from cisgender women", or (just to play out the pedantry) "Even after transitioning, transsexual women have biological differences from cissexual women"

P.S. ya caught me Basso, you should say hi to me... elsewhere. Genderhack (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also support the change (for the reasons given). And I'm not sure why it was reverted, as there does seem to be consensus here for changing it. -Mairi (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to note for future reference that even if we do change this we have nothing but our preference to cite. It's like how should we pronounce "tomato", there are equally compelling reasons and only preference for one version other another. I'm ok changing it for now as that seems to be the preference but I'm equally supportive of it being reverted as we have no strong reasons for either version that I have seen. I have my preference but that only counts for so much. -- Banjeboi 18:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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. And, as even the policy against censorship notes, "words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." BassoProfundo (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you show any reliable sourcing for these statements. If there really is compelling reasons would should understand them and express them in the article. -- Banjeboi 00:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. No, I can't. I can, however, provide numerous examples of trans women objecting to the term "transwoman" — starting with this very discussion. It is a word usage decision, and not a claim of fact, and should not be governed by WP:RS.

If we are stating that one form is preferable to another because those it applies to object to the other version, that is a WP:RS issue, and it needs more than a blog as a source. Could you provide the page number for Serano, please, as well as any other WP:RS which show this to be the case (i.e., establishing it not a one-off). BTW, the blog states this about transfeminism - yet there are 'transfeminism' groups etc., which suggests that some transfeminists see themselves as 'transfeminists', rather than 'trans femininists'. Anecdotal evdince is no good - I know of transmen who have no problem with transman, and I have never had anybody express problems about transwoman to me. What I have had is people objecting to just about anything you could possibly say - so I am sure that whether you use 'transman', 'trans man', 'transwoman', 'trans woman', MtF transsexual, FtM transsexual, M2F, F2M, etc., somebody won't like it. If you are going to enforce this across this and other articles (which is how my attention was drawn here), then you will need to ensure that the title of the article reflects this as well. Mish (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought - would 'trans-woman' be less of a problem, as this is one of the three versions given in the lead? I looked for the citation for Serano in the article, but it doesn't relate to this discussion, and I would like to verify what she ways about this in my copy. Mish (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Show me people objecting to "trans woman" (and not just objecting to making a change) and I will listen to their concerns. You're still trying to erase objections by demanding verification for a position that undeniably exists. BassoProfundo (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Sorry, we're not going to play the reverse game to prove that the opposite is true. You've pressed this issue so now please present reliable sources that definitively show us how Wikipedia should present this information. Absent any compelling reasons there is no reason we shouldn't have a mix of all usages and I could simply revert everything you've done, seems unhelpful, right? Let's try to make an unformed decision based on reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What, for you, would constitute a reliable source for the claim that some trans people object to the term "transwoman," since actual examples of these objections apparently don't mean anything to you? BassoProfundo (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For those who don't have the book, the particular quote of Serano's that i am referring to is as follows (retyped by *hand* thankyouverymuch)

Sometimes people have a tendancy to dismiss or delegitimize trans women's and trans men's gender identities and lived experiences by relegating us to our own unique categories that are seperate from "woman" or "man".... An obvious example of this phenomenon is the prevalence of the terms "she-males", "he-she's", and "chick with dicks" in reference to trans women. Sometimes attempts to third-sex or third-gender trans people are more subtle or subconscious than that, such as when people merge the phrase "trans women" to make one word, "transwoman" or use the adjectives MTF and FTM as nouns.

This is one piece of evidence that you're seeking. There is also the blog post i linked to previously. So, including my own personal objection, as well as the other users here; that's at least a handful of evidence. So far, i haven't seen any objection or offense at the term 'trans woman' with the space included; so even if there's little to win, there's nothing to lose. Genderhack (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And the page number is? I don't particularly care either way, unless it can be shown that something is seen as offensive - in which case I support such a change; in the lead there seems to be some ambiguity between three different spellings, one of which is 'trans-woman', which I find less problematic than either on the other two. So, how many sources use each version, which is the most established usage, and any more sources apart from Serano (not blogs, listserves, online encyclopedias, editor's personal views, etc. as these are not WP:RS)? This is not to do with erasing anybody - just ensuring we get it right. I object to people using certain terms myself, particularly as nouns, so I do understand. If you wish to make this change, then you also need to change the title to reflect this. If transmen / trans men have no issues with this, then you need to work out a way that you can apply this principle consistently - otherwise this could end up being a issue for future contention between articles on both; as we have already seen, this has 'spilled-over' into a number of related articles already. Mish (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

bottom of page 29 over to 30 in my edition, just like i listed in the citation. Third-gendering, or othering is seen as an offensive act; this clearly shows that 'transwoman' as one word does exactly that; thus 'transwoman' is seen as offensive. I fail to see how 'trans-woman' is any less offensive than 'transwoman' except for marginally; and i completely fail to see how 'trans woman' is somehow objectionable. So far, (just as basso said) nobody is objecting to spelling 'trans woman' itself, but merely to making the change. I do agree that we need to settle this here first, set a precedent, and then move on to fixing articles elsewhere; that is exactly what i intend to do, and i firmly believe that such a change will improve "encyclopedicness". Now, as far as WP:RS goes, it's a tricky issue; the very nature of the subject makes it hard to cite, as a majority of trans people prefer to keep the history of their gender rather private; unlike gays and lesbians, there aren't very many highly visible trans people who are out and outspoken about it. Given that this is not an issue of fact that will change the meaning or content of the article, but simply serve to make it more "professional" and unoffensive, i think that Serano's cite alone is more than enough to warrant a change; unless somebody can cite an equally reliable source demonstrating that 'trans woman' is offensive. Even if blogs and blog comments aren't WP:RS i would say that since it *is* easy to find a lot to support the opinion that dropping the space is offensive ( look in the comments here and here ) original research, perhaps, but again, this isn't about a fact that is going to change the meaning or content of the article. Again, i say, it's a very small change; including the space does not change the content of the article, will not offend anybody to my knowledge, and removes bias from the article. I don't see what the objection is aside from resistance to change, and if wiki calls to be bold then i don't see what the problem is. Genderhack (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the logic, and looking through Google books, although there are authors who opt for 'trans woman' or 'trans women', not 'tranwoman' or 'transwomen' Sally Hines there are other examples where Whittle and Stryker's 'Trangender Reader' both forms are used indiscriminately, and I would expect the editors, as a trans man and trans woman, to be setting a certain standard for this if it were an issue. That is why I am looking for sources - how far is this seem as an affront to trans women, universally, and how far is it something that some trans women, including Serano, object to? So, it seems down to a matter of personal choice, based on a particular POV, and I'm not sure how you can create a standard to disseminate throughout the encyclopedia on that basis - because one author may have a preference for one form, but another a different form. What different people find offensive depends on their POV - I find the use of 'gays' offensive - in the same way I would find 'transsexuals' or 'transgenders' offensive. I find nothing difficult about a third gender - it has a noble history that goes back over 100 years. But, this is not a one-or-the-other thing - I don't have to demonstrate that trans woman is offensive - you have to demonstrate that 'transwoman' is seen as offensive generally to trans people if you seek to sanction its use. I'm still not sure it is. What I would prefer you to do is to establish that this is the term used in most WP:RS, such as [Joan Roughgarden, etc. I'd be happy accepting this on that basis - that it is the time more widely used by authors who work in this area, especially trans authors themselves. That is because you will find it harder to establish that this is widely held to be offensive, but it is more easily verifiable as the preferred term in use. Mish (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be following the trend of reliable sources. If trans writers use the non-spaced more often, then so should we (or vice versa). We shouldn't be changing names based on one or two wikipedia editors that get offended by a word; even a discussion of possible offensiveness should be sourced. Just about every possible word for any gender or sexual orientation is offensive to someone, so only reliable sources should be taken into account.YobMod 07:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First off thank you everyone for working to find actual sourcing to document whatever is ultimately decided. I do want to point out with the Serano quote - Sometimes attempts to third-sex or third-gender trans people are more subtle or subconscious than that, such as when people merge the phrase "trans women" to make one word, "transwoman" or use the adjectives MTF and FTM as nouns. I find a bit of a flaw here as FTM International is one of the leading if not the leading advocacy organization for transmen. That being said I have already stated elsewhere that I personally don't think the two words necessarily parallel each other so neatly. I would like us to end up actually adding something NPOV to this article explaining the variations so when future editors are looking for guidance we have it in the most obvious place - the article itself. -- Banjeboi 08:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, this would expand on the different forms, which is most often used, and that some people find one of these offensive. Mish (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not just one or two editors wanting the change; and furthermore it seems like it's just one or two wiki editors *against* the change. But anyways, i suppose we've reached a stalemate of sorts, so it's just going to stay the way it is it seems. To banjeboi, as far as organizational names go, a lot of that simply has to do with history; "The Gay Center" in new york is so-called even though it serves far more than simply the gay community, including the bdsm/leather community, the lesbian community, the trans community, and the queer community, but there's a certain sense of historical momentum and tradition. You might also consider the NAACP; what is considered a "proper" term for a group of people changes, and there will be hold-overs. Since that is the case, i'm not sure that we're going to get a good idea for what is "used more often" in "reliable sources"; what is our metric? Literature on transgender topics frankly isn't published very often, and it isn't until the last few years that we've really started speaking for ourselves in the literature, rather than being spoken *about* like some medical oddity. But i digress.

Perhaps we should have a new article for "Trans" as an adjective/label in it's own right? (I suppose it would actually have to be "trans (gender identity)" since there is already a siambiguation page for trans) I know many people who identify as "trans" to avoid the politics/semantics/connotations of the labels "transsexual"/"transgender", and that is more-or-less what the space is about; turning 'trans' into a label/adjective that stands on it's own so that in the same way one might talk about a "transsexual woman" or a "transgender man", one could talk about a "trans man" or "trans woman". This is something that might be easier to cite, as the "transgender vs transsexual" matter is relatively well discussed. Genderhack (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this mean incorporating material for 'trans man' and 'trans woman' into this new article, or will it be yet another approach to 'transsexualism' and 'transgender', and other articles such as 'Homosexual transsexual', 'Autogynephilia', 'Harry Benjamin Syndrome', etc? I think 'trans' for an article is a good idea, and this could lay out the groundwork for the others, and incorporate links to them, and this is how Whittle and Stryker approach 'trans' in the 'Transgender Studies Reader', with trans as the overarching term, and transsexualism and transgender under this term (as well as intersex, for some reason that isn't made clear). That would be a good place to discuss what forms of 'trans woman' and 'trans men' people use in WP:RS, discussion of forms which are seen as offensive by whom. One problem I would be concerned about, though is appending '(gender identity)', although I'm not sure there is anything better. Mish (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see this as a stalemate as much as a concerted effort to get it right and avoid any edit-warring which we all have better things to do. As for a new article perhaps Trans (identity) would work? -- Banjeboi 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No not a stalemate at all - progress. 'Trans (identity)' is a good idea, or 'Trans identities' even? This could act as a way that would help pin down some of these terms, and act as a point from which they could be navigated to? Mish (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody needs to look at merging these two articles: Transwoman and Trans woman, and renaming this one with a redirect on the old one - before it all gets messy. Mish (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone's done it already. I think Trans identities would work, anyone else? -- Banjeboi 23:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

'Trans (identity)' is a better title than 'Trans identities', as the article would be about just one identity, 'trans'. (identity) is just necessary to disambiguate. It would be a useful article. -Mairi (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On Google Scholar "transwoman" gives 194 results and "trans woman" gives 211. And on Google Books "transwoman" gives 142 results, and "trans woman" gives 170. Even on google news, "trans woman" gives more results (23 to 8). So both are clearly used, with "trans woman" being slightly more common (and substantially more common in the news, which is going to skew recent). And we have at least one source (Serano) that "transwoman" is offensive. Do we have any sources on "transwoman" being preferred or on "trans woman" being offensive? (Also in Whittle and Stryker's 'Trangender Reader', the only use of "transwoman" is in a quotation.) -Mairi (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, did "trans-woman" ever get used? -- Banjeboi 12:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like about ten percent of the results for "trans woman" are "trans-woman". Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way to have google distinguish between the two. -Mairi (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought one of the papers in Whittle & Stryker used only 'transwoman', while the rest used 'trans woman' (and one instance also in quotes, as you say); but the pattern seems clear, both are used, but 'trans woman' seems to be used more frequently, and we have one source that sees 'transwoman' as offensive. That seems enough to warrant a change in this and other articles, including the article title. However, it doesn't seem enough to warrant beating people up who use 'transwoman', as - arguably - if they are citing a source that uses 'transwoman' itself, it would be more accurate to use that. 'Trans-woman' seems unnecessary, apart from a comment on its usage (not necessarily in the lead). Mish (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm relatively unfamiliar with Whittle & Stryker; but ditto on everything else (and thank you mairi). I don't think that any merges are a good idea at this point, and honestly i proposed the Trans (gender identity) idea as more-or-less a compromise, i frankly don't think there would be enough content to make it anything but a stub. I *do* think that we need to expand on the ramifications of including the space, and mention that some people do self-identify as "transwoman" and it is still a valid identity; but generally including the space is more "politically correct" (for lack of a better term) and generally preferred. Genderhack (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

Sounds like a new trans article may be unneeded. Perhaps we could start drafting how to encyclopedicly, and of course NPOV, represent the above points to be included in this article with sources. I feel that will give time for others to also look st these issues in case we missed something. Once it's complete i think it may make sense to also move this article if trans woman is the most logical title.

Presently we have:

“ Some transwomen who feel that their gender transition is complete prefer to be called simply "women," considering "transwoman" or "male-to-female transsexual" to be terms that should only used for people who are not fully transitioned. Likewise, many may not want to be seen as a "transwoman" owing to society's tendency to "Other" individuals who do not fit into the sex/gender binary, or have personal reasons beyond that to not wish to identify as transgender post-transition. For this reason, many see it as an important and appropriate distinction to include a space in the term, as in "trans woman", thus using "trans" as merely an adjective describing a particular type of woman; this is in contrast to the usage of "transwoman" as one word, implying a "third gender". ”

We should clean, clarify and ref, if we use Serano we should clarify why we are quoting her. Also it may make sense to lead the terminology section with this rather than ending it. If we have some Origin and Usages it may help show rather than tell. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there currently any objections to going forward with this change (adding the space, that is)? BassoProfundo (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see more than a local consensus, let's ensure we're not missing something obvious here. I think as we find strong reliable sourcing we can find out what the best way forward is, especially clarify who finds the addition or omission of the space offensive. This seems like it's a very new development as well so we should clarify that. -- Banjeboi 08:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with choosing 'trans woman' as the preferred form within this article, on the basis it is the more popular form, and citing the objection to 'transwoman' in Serrano as an explanation of why (some?) trans women find 'transwoman' offensive. The lack of sources that 'trans woman' is offensive suggests it is not offensive - unless somebody comes up with one. But, as we are opting change this on the available evidence - that it is the preferred and more-widely used term, the Serano citation is all that is needed to inform people that it has been argued that 'transwoman' is offensive. We do not need to say it is offensive, only that it has been seen as offensive - and Serano is a notable-enough public trans figure to warrant inclusion, I'd have thought. This way, we do not force the usage because people here say they don't like it, but because we have agreed through consensus that this is best approach, based on the sources, which will make it hard for anybody to ignore by inserting 'transwoman' - which can simply be changed to 'trans woman' if it occurs, pointing to this discussion and the entry itself on this, as the consensus position. Mish (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To a point I agree but the first step is to use sourcing to rewrite this article, then make any changes. Just to play devil's advocate here, we seem to be saying let's change every usage of the word on the world's encyclopedia based on Serano's objection. It would seem, per NPOV, we would balance that out with statement(s) that other trans activists don't seem to care or whatever can be crafted to fairly represent what sources support. -- Banjeboi 12:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Somebody needs to do the work - I'm not that fussed to do it myself. Then the title can be changed as well? Mish (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think so. -- Banjeboi 08:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone even realized that the article for Trans Man is spaced (politically) correctly? If for no other reason, change the title for consistency's sake. There are two very good reasons to change it, and no real reason not to. --Camicochan (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I posted a comment on the talkpage for trans man on this, and though I agree with a lot of the points made, my personal experience has always been that transwoman is the more common usage as opposed to trans woman. I think the real demarcator is the context of whether the person is "a woman who happens to be trans" or a transwoman, someone who includes "trans" within their identity as a woman, as opposed to an addendum to their identity as a "woman." Many post-op transsexual women (trans women) do not always want the "trans" association due to the social stigmas associated with it, but many other transwomen want the trans identity as a source of pride and diversity. Nicoleta (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience transwoman is a lot more likely to cause offense than trans woman. Also, I know many trans women who "want the trans identity as a source of pride and diversity" and still refer to themselves as trans women. For reasons such as this I welcomed the change to the article's title. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Josephine Shaffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer1135 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction regarding hormones

There is incorrect info in this article. Voice and hair are NOT affected by the hormone replacement therapy in transwomen. These issues should be corrected using voice therapy and various epilation methods.--~Chick With (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Body hair is affected by oestrogen, in that it becomes finer, although in somebody who was hirsuit as a man, there may be little noticeable difference. Head hair, like nails, becomes more brittle, while any recession (male-pattern-baldness) stops, although there is limited prospect of any re-growth once recession has begun. Progesterone counterbalances the brittleness, as I understand it, however, it increases growth of boby-hair. Mish (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be specified that facial hair is unaffected, though the commencement of hormone therapy early enough can prevent further development. --Camicochan (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The lead in the article seems to use a lot of weasel words, and needs a rewrite. SJrX10 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is exactly one weaselish "some" in there and it's accurate. Any word choice suggestions? -- Banjeboi 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically I was refering to:

Some individuals have been labeled and assigned as males, but feel that is not an accurate and complete description of themselves. They may desire to transition towards a gender role as a woman to varying degrees.

It seems overly qualified, and in some ways redundant. Neither sentence actually seems to be useful for the lead in of the article, and it seems disconnected from the first two sentences.

Someone suggested something like: "Individuals may feel that their biological or social gender does not reflect their feelings, and may transfer to a role as the opposite gender, or with no defined gender", however the issue seems contentious, and that too has it's problems. More generically I would either think that the sentence should be moved before the first sentence, or moved later in the article. If something more definitive/concrete could be said like "Transwomen...", or even "Many Transwomen" I think that would help -- SJrX10 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We will likely have problems defining male and female as opposite genders but I've tried to clean this up a bit without going that route. The lede is still very short but I've split the sentences into two paragraphs. Does this help? -- Banjeboi 08:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's better, now the only problem is the second sentence, "They may desire to transition towards a gender role as a woman to varying degrees.". Isn't that redundant in an article about transwomen (i.e. haven't all transwomen not only desired, but partaken) in a transition towards a gender role as a woman in various degrees). -- SJrX10 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I know that it's all over the board and we have to write conservatively. Some are quite happy being just as they are whereas others do wish to wear make-up and take steps to more identify with tradition female gender roles in their cultures. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying exactly, after reviewing the article and the article on transexualism and transgender, it seems like you might be saying or believing that you can be transwoman simply in spirit only, without making any changes to your life, or actions. If that is the case then the sentences make sense, however that isn't laid out in the first part of the lead in. . If on the other hand, in order to meet the definition of transgendered, you actually need to change your actions (even if they are very minor and limited changes, or if you go the full way), then it seems saying that "Many transgendered...", "They May desire" is incorrect, since it should be all. -- 216.152.207.157 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We may be talking past each a bit. One doesn't have to do anything but identify as or be identified as a transperson, transman, transwoman, etc. One can do much more but the identification is the key. What it means to be male and female is still being defined by each culture. And it's still changing. Many people try to reject all these labels and the cultural biases of having to be a certain way or not. -- Banjeboi 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Blanchard Reference

Hello, I removed the Ray Blanchard reference in the later half of the article as he has been under scrutiny from all sides of the transgender and LGB communities. His work is dubious at best as he has had a long history of completely ignoring the narratives and stories of actual trans people, imposing his theory of the "homosexual male transsexual" on others. I hereby request that no further referencing to Ray Blanchard or Kenneth Zucker be added, as their intellectual dishonesty supersedes any "authority" they have on the matter of transgendered issues.

See also: BBL controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.16.7 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

His work is not only dubious but should be completely removed from all wiki articles . Like many in the ex-gay Christian movement claimed to have cured gays ( which it absolutely did not and is now disowned by the governing bodies of psychiatry ) he claims to have "cured" being transsexual in children.Tis there no clinical proof of this whatsoever . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is the transsexual community who is more offended by Blanchard than the TG community. Genuine TSs are actually not in the TG nor LGBT community as a group, and TGs nor LGBTs never asked them if they wanted included or spoken for. This book was an insult to the mainstreamist TS community more than the separate TG community. Most TGism can be "cured" (but why?) while TSism is inborn, and a near-cure with HRT and surgery is the goal. It is more of a palliative thing. Of course, the theory was about recreational transgenderism, not inborn transsexualism, despite Blanchard's use of the term transsexual. From my own observations (I know, not scientific, and "original research"), there are men who are self-stigmatized gay men who go as far as to get surgery as to avoid owning their gay feelings, and likewise, there are men who are into fetish and want to be with lesbians, who work up TSism as a way to attempt to normalize their fetishes. Neither are truly transsexuals, and was a point sorely missed by Blanchard, and those who pointed that out were called liars.66.110.251.145 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Image broken?

What's with the image in this article? It displays correctly when clicked, but does not appear embedded in the article itself (which is a shame, because it's a wonderful photograph). I'm not sure how to fix this; perhaps it's just my computer? Somnambulent (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. GTBacchus^(talk) 20:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Transwoman → Trans woman —

• Support Preferred spelling. Georgia guy (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as per WP:MOS#Indentity

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

The links

I see a problem with the links, apart from the very local australian support group, they tend to maintain a relatively narrow view. Conway and Lawrence, especially, despite their opposition over the BBL nonsense, do seem to share a lot of the view; James is slightly more diverse about things all told, and even then. From reading the first two you get the impression that all trans women follow a narrow mold which is far from representative and I feel the links don't so much help as obfuscate. Side note to Cantor: yes I reverted, if you want to pretend you have concensus, don't do it on my back, my original "the links represent a narrow view of what trans women are" was never a license to reduce things to Anne Lawrence. Snapdragonfly (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the links were becoming a coatrack. I am not pretending anything, however, and it is innaccurate to assert that I reduced things to Anne Lawrence. As anyone can verify here I retained 'both' the links that fit WP:ELNO, which were Anne Lawrence's link and the Gender Center. I have now removed all the EL's; go ahead and re-add whichever links you can justify as fitting WP policy.

Your NPA's against me will not end well, and I note from your talkpage that I am not the first to warn you against personal attacks against other editors.— James Cantor (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:ELNO particularly speaks against Conway's pages or even the Andrea James page, especially if the other two remained (Anne Lawrence's personal website is as much self promotion as Conway's). You're stretching the rule. Also kindly refrain from threats. You acted on your own without prior consensus using my edit summary as an excuse, as I pointed out, that was not what I meant. You're on your own for that decision. Snapdragonfly (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I refer you specifically to ELNO#11, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Anne Lawrence is widely recognized as such an authority (with a large number of relevant publications in a wide range of peer reviewed journals), whereas Lynn Conway and Andrea James are not. If you believe that LC and AJ should be an exception and be deemed authorities, I suggest you use an RfC.— James Cantor (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the only criterion offered for relevance in this situation. There are 19 others. I will also note that verifiability requirements are very far from being limited to "relevant publications in a wide range of peer reviewed journals". I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability - "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas." Trans woman, as an article, is about a group of people, not just a strange sexual phenomenon to put under your microscope (I have no need to be reminded that as an anthropology student the same could be said about what is done in this field, and I would be the last to insist on only using peer reviewed papers as sources on a population group as though they were the last arbiter of reliability and verifiability). Snapdragonfly (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, your continued misconception(s) about me and what I do professionally are blinding you from what I am actually saying. I can only repeat what I already said: Follow WP:NPA, and seek input from otherwise uninvolved editors with an RfC. Of course, you can bicker with me instead of seeking that external input, but editors reading your now on-going hesitation to seek neutral input will increasingly conclude you are insincere on your point. So, it would be in your interest, not to continue this thread with me, but to go ahead and advocate for your opinion to its logical conclusion in the appropriate manner.— James Cantor (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I sense a rather hard time if your threshold for what constitutes a personal attack is so low; the phrenology bit was probably uncalled for, the rest was far from a personal attack: I simply replied in kind and corrected your selective interpretation of the rules. Also please stop with the strawmen, or I can play this procedural game (what about good faith), this talk page discussion shows nothing about a reluctance to seek neutral input, I simply consider that a request for comment requires slightly more effort than bickering with you, and I like to make sure my draft is readable by people besides myself; also you, yourself, were the one bypassing the neutral inputs under the pretence of interpreting what I wrote in an edit summary to your interests. Snapdragonfly (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Biological vs. genetic woman

It is worthy of noting that the term biological woman, when used to describe a natal non-transsexual woman, is not completely accurate. Hormone replacement therapy for male-to-female transsexuals, wherein the male hormone testosterone is reduced and the female hormones estrogen and progesterone are raised, results in countless biological changes. These include natural breast development, accumulation of fat around hips and thighs which serves as energy storage for breastfeeding, softening of the skin, loss of male fertility, loss of muscle mass, loss of body hair, and changes in metabolism. As such, a male-to-female transsexual who has been on HRT for several years not only resembles - or in many cases is indistinguishable from - a natal woman, but also has a biology that is very unlike that of a typical male, or her pre-HRT biology. Therefore the term genetic woman is more accurate when describing a natal non-transsexual woman, as it implies transsexual women having the genetics that developed testicles and the resulting effects of testosterone. The term biological woman implies that transsexual women have a male biology, which isn't true when it comes to HRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuroraFinn (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of either using the terms "biological woman" or "genetic woman", the term "cisgender woman" can be used instead. Solar-Wind (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, genuine transsexuals ARE cisgendered and just like "biological" women except for their birth condition. Only transgendered males who live as women are "gender variant." A TS woman identifies completely as female, while a TG person living as a woman has mental and behavioral traits of both genders. There is no need to distinguish TS women from other women, just the men who live as women and keep their parts for life and live gender variant lives known as "transgender." A TS woman is born with the same nature and neurology as other women, while a TG male who lives as a woman and keeps his male parts for life does not.66.110.251.145 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct at all. I really don't think there is some "nature" that all cis women share in the first place. Gender identity is a spectrum, and even for people who identify within the binary, there is a whole lot of variety. Referring to a non-op trans woman as "a transgendered male living as a woman" is invalidating and simply inaccurate.P.gandal (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversed use of language

Some of the things written seem to be completely wrong in how they are characterized. So for example "a pre-op trans woman possessing both breasts and male genitalia" does not make sense. If they contain both a penis and breasts then they are not pre-op they are post-op. Another example: "It is a common misconception and stereotype that all transgender and transsexual women are heterosexual (attracted to males)." this again is totally reversed, if they are biologically male and are attracted to other males, they are homosexual not heterosexual, no matter what surgical alterations they have made to their body. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think about it, these "reversals" are not surprising... because in some sense, transsexual persons are themselves "reversed", no matter what you believe the causes are.

The phrase "a pre-op trans woman possessing both breasts and male genitalia" is correct: "pre-op" means only that no genital surgery has been performed: such a "pre-op trans woman" may be on female hormones which have induced breast growth, and in addition have undergone breast augmentation as well as other surgeries, without having genital reconstruction done.

As for using the label "heterosexual" for trans women who are attracted to males, if you accept that they are trans women, it makes perfect sense... and that's the way trans women themselves state their feelings about such attractions. The neutral term is "androphilic"; "homosexual" is used by some researchers... but androphilic trans women strongly dislike being called "homosexuals" (see Blanchard, "Gender Identity Disorders in Adult Men" ... Blanchard characterizes them as "homosexual transsexuals" anyway: "Homosexual gender dysphorics maintain that their sexual interest in other men is actually heterosexual, because "inside" they really are women." ;-).

And as for "biologically male" ... if the brain is acknowledged as a biological organ of the human body, and some (or all) trans women have brains which are (partially or wholly) feminized before birth... see Transgender#Transsexual_people_and_science and / or Causes of transsexualism ... just what IS their "biological sex"? "Male Biology" is about a lot more than just the penis, no?

This is a complicated topic involving manifestations of unusual traits and desires which are not well understood, and therefore... in my opinion, the terminology is almost bound to be confusing. -- bonze blayk (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PETE BURNS

Pete Burns should be here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.98.43 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, Pete Burns should not be here. He's had a lot of facial surgeries done, but he is not seeking to transition, nor does he identify as a transsexual woman; he's apparently not on hormones, has never had breast implants, and has no desire for SRS. bonze blayk (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Medical Diagnoses vs. Popular Constructs Regarding the Terms Transman and Transwoman

With regards this linking of the term "Male-To-Female Transsexual" to the term Transwoman (or Trans Woman,) it seems to me that these are two entirely different concepts. Male To Female Transsexual is a diagnostic term. The term "Transwoman" is a "pop" social construct which is little known, hardly accepted, and poorly descriptive. It is a misnomer used to attempt to describe what already has widely accepted terms of "woman" and "female." If we are to be accepted as people, to establish ourselves as intelligent individuals with real lives, needs, values, and morals, we must take ourselves seriously. We are not more or less. We are not separate. We have more commonality than difference. I am a woman. I am not a trans-anything. Find your pride in your accomplishments as an individual. I think we should be proud of who we are, but we should find our strength in that which has substance, not wizbang titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.70.13 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

76.221.70.13: For what it's worth: I believe that the term "trans woman" is simply a contraction of the phrase "transsexual woman" rather than being a "pop construct", and as such simply replaces more unwieldy terminology with a term that is more succinct. Moreover, many trans women object to having the word "sexual" appear in a term used to describe them, which they hold to be insulting because they believe it implies that their transition is motivated by sex; and some trans women object to the use of the term "Male-to-Female" (or "MtF") because they believe it implies that they were essentially "Male" in the first place. Finally, if you perceive yourself as a woman, and are accepted as a woman, that's wonderful; some transsexual women understand themselves to be women, but have difficulty passing, and not necessarily through their own failings in terms of "socially acceptable performance" of women's relationship styles and roles, but instead because of their physique, or because they had established careers before transitioning and continue to be perceived as "men" by associates because they were known as such... many of these women prefer to use the term "trans woman" to describe themselves, because they hope it will seem less pretentious to others.

I hope that my discussion on this issue works equally well for trans men, but... I am much less familiar with their concerns than with those of trans women. Thank you! -- bonze blayk (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Transwoman is short for transgender "woman." Trans or T are short for transgender, not transsexual. I am a transsexual woman who identifies as a subset of the Mainstream community, not part of the TG community. You can call me a transsexual woman or a woman born with transsexualism, but I consider calling me a "transwoman" to be offensive on par with racial epithets. Reserve that term for non-op TGs, not preop TSs nor former TSs. I identify as a cisgender woman with a birth defect, not as a type of born male TG in drag. I believe that MtF TGs are gender variant men who choose to live as a woman as a manifestation of that variance, and that MtF TSs are gender conformists who transition to be a part of the non-LGBT community and be accepted 100% the same as a born-female woman. What makes a TS a woman is inborn while what makes a TG a "woman" is chosen or the result of trauma. TSs are a part of the non-LGBT community, and TGs are a part of the LGBT community. Also, it is incorrect to refer to TSs who side with the Mainstream Community instead of the TG community as "separatists."

I tend to agree with other things said here. "Former TS" is preferable to postop TS, or just call them women (or men if FtM). I also tend to agree with the modern usage, TtF or TtM. I don't object to the term sexual, since "sex" here refers to the body. I am correcting my body, not altering my gender identity nor my gender role. Sure, I had to change my role to match my identity and what my body should have been, but that is a minor thing. We call people diabetics, not "insulin-takers." So changing the role is an incidental part to being born with TSism, and we would have never had to change our roles if our bodies were correct from day 1. Lumping us in with TGs because we wear a dress is not fair. In that case, why not lump people on medication in with recreational drug users, and call them all "drug users?"194.168.230.106 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Daughter of a trans woman

One Internet site http://supersoffa.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-five-questions-with-helen-boyd.html talks about someone being the daughter of a trans woman. Is there any reference to trans women becoming mothers anywhere on Wikipedia?? Perhaps this is merely an adoptive daughter; a trans woman cannot be a biological mother. Georgia guy (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

She is apparently the biological daughter of her father, whom she is now pleased to identify as a trans woman, and happy with that identity... but still, as her father. If there are any other references to children of transgender/transsexuals in Wikipedia, or even Significant Others thereof, I am unaware of them.... though they probably exist.-)

If and when progress in medicine makes it possible for transwomen to bear children as women, there is no doubt that some will seek to do so; see Lili Elbe. -- bonze blayk (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A father is by definition a man. Any dictionary that reveals a father can be a (trans) woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Mac OS X dictionary offers:

"Transsexual: a person born with the physical characteristics of one sex who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex.

• a person who has undergone surgery and hormone treatment in order to acquire the physical characteristics of the opposite sex."

So I see no inherent logical difficulty with understanding that a person born male (a "man") who transitions to some physical approximation of female (thus becoming a "trans woman") should still be identified by hir daughter as her "father".

(Please note: I'm using non-gendered pronouns "sie" and "hir" because otherwise discussing this gets way too confusing .-) -- thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if the parent is a woman (even if they were assigned male at birth), then they are the mother regardless of how the child was conceived or obtained. We don't make a difference between mothers that adopt, use sperm banks, or conceive the typical way. This is no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.25.130 (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Those definitions are outdated. Also, referring to TS women (gender conformists who were born in the wrong body and need surgery to get into the right body) with gender-neutral terms is offensive. The whole reason a TS woman gets corrective surgery is for the entire world to treat them the same as born-female, non-LGBT women. If you wouldn't call a cisgender mother of 3 a "hir" or "sie" then you wouldn't call a TS woman that either. The neutral terms are okay for TGs, not TSs. If someone has or is seeking a vagina, then treat them 100% the same as if they were born with one. As for a TS, that is a person born with the brain neurology and being of one sex (not mere "identity") and who needs surgery to fix it. You are born with TSism and take hormones and get surgery to "cure" it to the extent possible. An actual TS is really not transgender, and when they get the surgery, not only are they not transgender, they are not even transsexuals. They have the correct body for the mind. If a Type 1 diabetic gets a new pancreas somehow, or a new pancreas-like organ grown from manipulated stem cells, then they are not a diabetic anymore. Calling a former TS a TS comes from the old bigotry that a TS woman can never "really" be a woman, and lumping them with TGs rather than the gender public who are not LGBTs happens to fuel that bigotry. And I agree, a female parent is a mother no matter how they got their kids.194.168.230.106 (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Study this sentence

The first sentence in the Sexual orientation section of this article is:

The stereotype of the effeminate boy who grows up to live as a woman has a very long history.

This sentence needs to be fixed. Is a boy a stage in the life of a man or a trans woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a serious problem with it myself, particularly given that it is introduced as a "stereotype" of an effeminate boy. In a population analyzed in a recent retrospective research study "Transgender Children: more than a theoretical challenge" (PDF) - Natacha Kennedy and Mark Hellen, 40% of trans women only realize that they are gender variant after the age of 8, and 15% after the age of 12, so there is plenty of time over which a trans woman might be self-identifying as a boy.

Note, however, that the citation provided Playing with Barbies?:The Role of Female Stereotypes in the Male-to-Female Transition, doesn't appear to provide any support for the statement you question (as is the case with all-too-many citations on Wikipedia.-). - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is different depending on whether you mean a transsexual woman or merely a transgendered male living as a woman. The genuine TS woman has always been a girl despite being robbed of normal female parts and a normal female upbringing, and she is not "gender variant." Genuine TS women are gender conformists while TG males who live as women are gender variant. TS women are more likely to be feminine in childhood (a least until it is abused out of them), while TG "women" are more likely to be somewhat masculine in childhood, since "her" "female identity" is elective, optional, and chosen. TS women are feminine while TG men in drag are effeminate.66.110.251.145 (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The above paragraph by 66.110.251.145 must be about drag queens. Georgia guy (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Roughly speaking, "transgender" and its abbreviation "trans" are umbrella terms for anyone with a gender identity other than what they were assigned at birth, while "transsexual" refers to a subset of trans people that strictly identify as the opposite gender and usually seek hormone replacement therapy and sexual reassignment surgery. (Some identify with one label but not the other.) Drag queens, on the other hand, are performers that dress and/or act like a (usually caricatured) woman, but (usually) don't actually identify as female; drag queens are merely performers. The IP above is referring to gender-variant people who identify as transgender but not transsexual. (She or he is also making assertions at odds with the commonly accepted definitions of "transgender" and "transsexual," as well as attacking trans people that fall outside the gender binary.) --Fran Rogers (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, TS includes only trans women who were born with male bodies but who identify as women (as well as trans men who were born with female bodies who self identify as men) whereas TG also includes people where at least one of the body and brain are mixed-gender?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Degrading term for transsexuals

The term "transwoman" is short for "transgender 'woman'" (man who lives as a woman and never gets surgery) and should never be used as short for "transsexual woman" (a normal, mainstream, non-TG woman who was merely born with the wrong parts that she has to have surgically corrected). Many TS women, including myself find the term offensive. So don't call me and those who think like me "transgendered" nor anything that could be a shortened form of that. I am a transsexual woman, not a "transwoman" nor a "T-girl." When the terms are ambiguous, transgender should be assumed. Please at least mention that some of us transsexual women find the term offensive and lumping us in with our political foes who want to destroy what we want while fighting for what we are fighting against. There should be separate words to differentiate the choice of male transgenderism from the medical anomaly of women wrongly born with male parts and a mainstream, cisgendered, female nature. I find the term transwoman degrading for transsexuals and dishonest for MtF transgendered males with intact penises which they love, use, and want to keep.66.110.251.145 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

66.110.251.145 - To a large extent I sympathize with you, and every time a transsexual woman who identifies herself as such is labelled by the media as (say) a "transgender beauty queen", I cringe... why should I have to read deep into an article, or an interview, in order to find that a person is a fully-transitioned transsexual, rather than - what? An exceptionally polished drag queen? I agree absolutely that this is an invalidation of their person and their identity.

I think the article deals appropriately with the issue of women of transsexual history who object to being labeled as "trans women" when it notes that "some... prefer to be called simply 'women'...", and provides other caveats regarding the way transsexual women may react to the term. I think putting in more aggressive statement, such as "the hackles of women of transsexual history are raised, and perfect justification, when they are inaccurately described as x, y, or z" would be, well, "unencyclopedic" in tone? (Please note: I agree with that statement!)

I would like to note that Victoria Prince's late-in-the-game hijacking of the term "transgender" and her claims to having coined the term - which are false - are being corrected, at least here in Wikipedia (see the recent edit made to the article on Transgender in the section covering the evolution of the term). The vague, muddled, and sometimes downright contradictory terminology used to classify the huge range of people smothered beneath the "transgender" blanket annoys me no end, especially the grating ambiguity in the prefix "trans-" - is that supposed to imply "across from", or "crossing"? - there's a big difference! - but there's little I can do to to change this state of affairs.

Since I think it makes a significant difference in my attitudes on this topic, I'll explain "where I'm coming from": I am myself a (pre-op) transsexual woman; I dislike being referred to as "transgender"; I don't particularly object to being identified as a "trans woman" publicly because I think the term more-or-less adequately gets across the idea that one is gendered female to ordinary folks who are going to lack the patience for a detailed elaboration of exactly which class a person fits into within the category of transsexual women (at a minimum, non-op, pre-op, post-op, and now just plain women.-); like many of my female friends, I do not place a high value on being "normal" or "mainstream", and certainly do not personally qualify as either... and at the same time find the whole notion of being purposefully gender transgressive as part of a calculated postmodernist artistic or political stance ludicrous, and somewhat pathetic.

Anyway, thank you for your comment... - Sincerely, bonzie anne - bonze blayk (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I also thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings here. Personally, I have started using "trans woman" (with a space) as a substitute for "transgender woman", when trans status is relevant and I want to include transsexual women. My reasoning has been that while there are people who will be offended by "trans women", there are more who would be offended by "transgender women" (when used in the broad sense). Of course, when a specific woman tells me she does not want to be called trans, I do not use "trans woman" to refer to her. The only alternative I can think of would be to start using terms like "non-cisgender women" and "non-cis women". And I think explicitly mentioning that some transsexual women do not want to be called trans women is a stellar idea. Do you know of a good reference? If you have other suggestions, I would be happy to hear them.

I would also like to note that I feel "MtF transgendered males with intact penises" is offensive, and I hope we can avoid that sort of language in the article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it offensive when folks discuss TSs & TGs as a single unit. Why not use "TS women" to refer to actual TS women who were born that way & have or need surgery & "transwomen" for those who merely live as women without surgery, often for recreational or trivial reasons? Why not say "TS women & TGs?" Or TS women & transgendered persons? A TS transitions out of need, not pleasure, attention, nor sexual fetish. She gets no pleasure from having a penis, & really doesn't want to use it while preop unless she's in denial or mistakes herself for a gay man.

Why's the truth offensive? A person with an intact penis is male. A person born with a penis & likes using it is a man. Partially transitioning in a way that involves or revolves around sex or their penis means they're men, not women. So transwoman is offensive to many TSs & a lie when applied to men who dress or live as women, who aren't women in the genes, neurology, behavior, nor being. The difference comes from motives & needs. A TS transitions to stop being a TS & to become as cisgendered as possible. A TG tends to transition to become different. It's about sexuality or recreation for them. Some TGs are self-homophobic & choose to think of themselves as women to avoid admitting gayness. Others are self-hating, heterosexual males who pass themselves off as lesbians. They may transition because they feel powerless in the world & want unfair advantage. They should reclaim their masculinity, even with their feminine wardrobe/mannerisms. We could fix society to allow for them so they won't have to encroach on women, including TS women. TS men don't have as big a problem with female-born TGs taking over & controlling them, since most women lack the sexuality or ego to do so.

Another difference is that most TSs lack the need for PC speech and don't get as offended easily as TGs. TSism is inborn while TGism is chosen for the most part. People who choose things get offended easier. The amount of rise you get out of non-op, recreational TGs when you call it a choice is a clear red flag that it is.66.110.251.145 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to engage you further in these matters as soon as you find some citations from reliable sources to support your claims. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP says "A person with an intact penis is male." And that "A person born with a penis & likes using it is a man." I say that there are things that the IP isn't well-informed on regarding this, or is rather ignorant of. If we go by "have a penis and you're male" argument, then "a normal, mainstream, non-TG woman who was merely born with the wrong parts that she has to have surgically corrected" is male as well...before the surgery. And even after the surgery, the DNA still reads as male. So the IP's argument is beyond contradictory. And ever here of gender categories, just to take this a step further? That's where "man and woman" fit. Meaning socially-constructed. Every transgender/transsexual person who is educated on these matters knows that just because your sex defines you as male or female, it doesn't mean that your gender/gender identity corresponds with that. Many transgender people, whether transmen or transwomen, don't go through with getting sex reassignment surgery, but they are still men or women. Transmen face difficulty in attempting to acquire satisfying genital reconstruction surgery, and so many of them, like Chaz Bono, opt not to go through with the surgery. The IP's comment takes the transgender/transexual community many steps back. And, as has been stated, "transgender" refers to post-ops as well. Many post-ops have no issue at all being called a transwoman. The IP can object all she wants; won't change a damn thing. Good grief. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the other IP poster, and she reads like a published expert I've read. She knows her stuff if it is the same one, so please avoid the personal attacks an profanity. The TS woman was never supposed to be born with a penis, while the TG is supposed to have his. The neurology and "soul" are all that matter here, not the DNA. A MtF TG is a type of man. His effeminacy was acquired, while a TS woman's femininity was inborn. The TS woman belongs in the box called woman, while a TG "woman" is a type of man. You seem to confuse gender role (social construct) with gender identity (inborn). The male-born TG was born with a male gender identity, but still chooses a feminine gender role, despite it being unnatural for him. The gender role is the least of a TS woman's concern, since her female gender identity is inborn. So all she seeks to change is her body, and the gender role falls into place.

She is supporting the TS/Mainstream community and furthering the rights of the TS & Mainstream Community. It may be taking the separate TG Community back, but genuine TSs don't care since they support the Mainstream Community and only want rights and recognition only within a non-TG, non-LGBT construct. Treat a TS woman the SAME as born female, and give male-born TGs all the same rights and treatment as men, or give them a 3rd gender group of their own. Because of TGs, TSs have LOST lots of rights in your country since 2000. The TGs hijacked the gains the TSs made for only their people, took away their place in non-LGBT society, and turned non-LGBT people against them. Transgender, when used correctly, never refers to TSs, preop nor postop. A person is born TS and then corrects that with surgery to become full women in the eyes of society and the law. TGs are gender variant, TSs are gender conformist. TGs are a part of the LGBT, TSs are a type of Mainstream Person, only with a birth defect. Only the TGs (the type of men called "transwomen") who wrongly get SRS don't mind the label of transwoman. They like being out and hate the Mainstream Community that their surgery was supposed to get them into. So show me a TS, preop or former TS who likes being called a "transwoman," and I will show you a MtF TG. Yes, some carry their charade to the operating theatre. I only speak from a MtF perspective since FtMs rarely have problems with fakes, and the few fakes there don't have this need to impose their agenda on others and insert themselves where they are not wanted.194.168.230.106 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, no true transsexual puts sugar on their porridge...

The labels "transsexual" and "transgender" are very much a matter of self-identification, an important point that I think the article does a good job of explaining. Some people, after transitioning to the opposite gender, no longer identify as transsexual, let alone as transgender. But there are most definitely plenty of post-operative transsexual women out there that consider themselves part of the transgender and/or LGBT community.

And folks, please, too, at least show some respect and avoid the urge to misgender those who you consider to not be "true" transsexuals. I'm smelling a lot of internalized oppression here. --Fran Rogers (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is very simple. The terms are absolute, not self-identification. A transsexual woman was born 100% the same in the soul, nature, essence, and being as other women, and she was SUPPOSED TO be born a vagina, and be raised in the mainstream community. But a TG "woman" is a man born with a healthy penis and healthy male identity, and for whatever reason, he decided to start living as what he is not. So a male-born TG is mostly either a homosexual male or a heterosexual male fetisher in a dress, who chose to delude himself, poison himself with female hormones, and even get some mutilation done. No oppression here as I'm openly a TS woman (medical) who openly opposes the TG (choice) community. Contrary to popular conception, TS women think just like cisgender women and thus can be just as conservative and even bigoted as a cisgender woman. A TG "woman" is unable to be conservative or "bigoted" since he operates on an unhealthy subset of femininity and is incapable of independent thought outside the leftwing hive. I believe only TS women deserve female pronouns, while male-born TGs deserve male pronouns, since their inborn need to keep their penises -- the symbol of rape, power, sexism, violence, and oppression -- negates any "femininity" they seem to have (which is only in their role, not their identity). You are either born supposed to have a vagina (TS) and live as a woman or supposed to have a penis (TG) and live as a guy. A TS woman NEEDS complete transition, while a TG wants his partial transition to get his jollies. TSs are motivated by being whole, while TGs are motivated by passions, immorality, and sex. For me to call a TG "woman" by female pronouns is to attack and disrespect everything that is within me. TG men in drag don't have a female gender identity, just a fake social role, and a masculinized, sexist variation of what they think women wear and do. When a male-born TG lives as a woman, he is co-opting normal women (with or without the birth defect of TSism) and stealing their place in society, and often with the hostile, male motive of trying to lead them. So I believe a TS needs their body fixed to match who they are, while a TG needs therapy to become a productive member of their true, inborn male nature. As for TSs who consider themselves TGs, they are either TGs who mistakenly got surgery, or propagandized, and that is so sad, and they harm and sell out their true-TS counterparts who are loyal to the TS/Mainstream cause, not the TG/LGBT one. It is sad the TGs have to take advantage of children and abuse TS children by forcing them to be raised as TG boys who pretend to be girls and not as real girls.72.11.53.145 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

For your info 72.11.53.145, you appear to believe that both of the following kinds of people exist:

1. TS women means to you what trans women are to people who are educated (women who were born in the wrong body and [usually] get their bodies fixed with surgery; they have always had their female brain structure.)
2. TG women means to you what trans women are to ignorant people (these people are informed of transgender people as if they were people who just make up fake identities arbitrarily); they are men pretending to be women. (Note that for clarification, this is what 72.11.53.145 thinks TG woman means, in contrast to TS woman. This user appears to believe both kinds of people exist.)

Or, perhaps you think TG woman means drag queen. Is this right?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a TS who never was a TG and am offended by the opening paragraph. I was BORN with TSism when I was supposed to be female, and that means having a vagina. So I'm a "GG" with the wrong body, not a MtF TG man pretending to be a woman (and always failing as is evidenced by his desire to actively keep and use his penis). I have never needed a community other than the general public community, and most believe I have the birth defect of TSism (a woman born wrongly with a penis and who needs it gone), not the choice of transgenderism - which is gender variance, and genuine TSs have a physical problem and no gender variance, no fetish, and no sexual motivations for fixing the body. All I need is the funds to destroy this birth defect, remove the unwanted part by turning it into the correct part as close as possible, and for nobody to know I have had this birth defect. Then I will stand a chance in the real world, not the tranny ghetto my TG opponents who are nothing like me try to force on me. As opposed to the boring lives that every TS woman is content with that most women have, TGism is about self-hating men constantly living as what they are not due to their male ego or their arousal and living a constant party of frequent sex, drunkenness and debauchery. So I am not transgendered, but only have a physical problem a couple of hours of surgery can fix. Anyway, I support TSs and other typical non-LGBT without supporting TGs nor other LGBTs, and I am proudly not transgendered. I never asked for TG men in drag who run from their inborn male identity to speak for me, include me, or help me in the least. And their "help" only destroys my goal for complete assimilation that every genuine TS woman was created for. TS women have a place in the GG community, TG men who lie and pretend to be women have their place in the LGBT community. So don't call me "transgendered," and in the streets, I consider that fighting words. Use TS woman to mean a woman who was born wrongly without a vagina while using TG to mean men who pretend to be women, have sexual motivations for partial transition, who are male sex workers, who enjoy having a penis, and/or thumb their nose as surgery. TSism is a condition, while TGism is a chosen lifestyle. When a TS takes off her clothes, she is still a woman, while when a TG takes of his clothes, he's still a man. Maybe a self-hating man with the constant need to defy his inborn gender and society, but he's still a man no matter what he wears or who he mates.72.11.53.145 (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Transsexual def

The article says: "A transsexual woman is someone who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman;" This indicates that someone with an expressed Y chromosome who the midwife called female at birth would not be a transsexual, despite the obvious fact that she has had a sex change operation later in life. Perhaps it should say "someone who expressed male physiological traits at birth, but whose gender identity is female"? 86.26.236.107 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Transsexual women are arguably female. One of the definitions of "female" found at dict.org is "for or pertaining to or composed of women or girls", and many women have birth certificates, driver's licenses, or the like that read, "Female." (For similar reasons the term "female-bodied" has fallen out of favor among trans folks.)

FWIW it is by no means clear that the woman in your thought experiment is transsexual. See Mari Mikkola's discussion of the distinction between sex and gender.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly it seems that the definition of this new word is in a state of flux and does not have a single definition at this time. What is normally done with articles about new words that have several definitions? 86.26.236.107 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Transsexual not transgender

I am a TS woman who is not transgender nor a part of the LGBT. When used correctly, transgender is everyone who is gender variant. TS women have a complete female identity and are not "gender variant." So TG is a gender variant umbrella for those who don't get surgery, or don't get it for the expected reasons, while TS is someone born with the need to get the corrective surgery and assimilate. A MtF TS is a type of woman with an unwanted physical anomaly, while a MtF TG is a type of man who chooses to vary his gender identity to that which is against nature. TS woman transition to become whole, conform, and destroy as much differences as possible, while male-born TGs attempt to partially transition as a way to become different. I am not the only one who believes this and none of the gender "experts" have the condition of transsexualism. Again, the new understanding is that TSs and TGs are different in kind with TSs being gender conformists, and TGs not, and that the term TG includes everyone EXCEPT those diagnosed with TSism. It is ignorant, prejudicial, and bigoted to say that TSs are included in the TG community. If you say this is not encyclopedia, I will just say that you all need to wait until my next book. Then it will be relevant. A TS who is proudly not transgendered and who ONLY helps TS persons (and others who act like the general populace) without helping TG persons.72.11.53.145 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As you can see above, this type of distinguishing aspect has been discussed on this talk page before. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability, not our personal opinion, and the WP:Reliable sources don't distinguish the terms the way you are distinguishing them...not generally anyway. Many transsexuals, for example, don't feel the way that you do about this topic, including some WP:Notable ones. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)