Talk:Transsexual

Kindly remember to put new topics at the end of the page, not the top.

---

An important point...

I would like to see some reference to the viewpoint brought up by, for example, Kate Bornstein in "Gender Outlaw" which is that transsexual people may not always feel the necessity for sex reassignment operations (especially, conscious of their possible complications and general uncertainty of the outcome) or indeed strongly dislike their body/genitals (except perhaps for the reason that society does not accept their body to be of the sex or gender that they feel they represent). She proposes the division to pre- and postoperative transsexuals be given up. English is not my first language and I am not certain I know enough on the topic to do this myself, but I'm hoping perhaps there is someone else interested in this aspect and willing to contribute? Shadowcrow 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Kate bornstein is an interesting writer, and she does have some strong opinions.

Part of her argument is that there should be no male/female gender division, and that transsexuals are giving into medical and social structures when they ascribe to the medical process.

The problem is, to subscribe to the medical process, and be diagnosed as transsexuals, they need to have strong cross-gender identification, not just "agender" identification - and additionally, they have to desire surgery, else they don't fit the medical defenition of transsexualism (as in the DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10, anyway).

I think there should be a small section on this, but it does not represent the majority of transsexuals. A more appropriate place to put it would perhaps be transgender rather than transsexualism.

As a side-note, her (Kate Bornstein's} theory is quite similar (perhaps disturbingly so) to Janice Raymond's hypothesis about transsexualism. Both are strongly criticised by some, including Patrick Califia, who I've referenced on a couple of pages now.

Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there already exists the prefix "non-op" to counter "pre-op" and "post-op". Maybe this is mostly restricted to areas where transsexuality is well accepted, like Seattle. But I've already heard it fairly commonly in use. I personally couldn't imagine being non-op... and all of my non-trans female friends probably would agree with me that I'm not "raping" their bodies as Janice Raymond would put it... to them it's entirely naturally that I'm female. I would however argue that there are transsexuals out there who this would describe, but then there are men out there who physically rape women. As with anything, categorizing any group of people and giving a generic reason for their motives, just isn't appropriate, or justified. Sorry to get on a person-ish rant here. But I really just wanted to point out that there are non-op transsexuals out there. And they receive the same treatment all of the other transsexuals do. --Puellanivis 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I left out aknowledging the non-op transsexuals - I certainly know they exist. I don't dispute that these people are transsexual, or should be labeled otherwise - instead I hoped to include them (although I seem to have failed :) ). My main point in relation to them is that they don't fit the medical definition if they don't desire surgery - but you can be non-op and still desire surgery, or non-op and not desire surgery.

Absolutely non-op individuals need and hopefully recieve medical support - usually under a slightly different diagnosis. And I support them in their right to decide how they want to live, whether or not I would make that choice in the first place.

Most of my objection was supposed to be aimed at the argument by Bornstein that anyone who wants an operation is giving in to a medical diagnosis, and all transsexuals should instead be "gender outlaws" - that none of us should want bottom surgery, and we should all be non-op. It's that that I object to and believe is a view held by a minority of transsexuals, but perhaps describes more people who are transgendered.

Sorry for any accidental offense. Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 05:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand better now. That makes more sense. ... Yeah, I just can't agree with that at all. I'm sorry, but I have more than just "preference" for why I want "bottom surgery". Well, first of all, it would be nice to be able to stop taking anti-androgens. Second of all, it's extremely uncomfortable for me. I know an FTM to was talking to the list about how he was very happy to be getting his top surgery done, because during the summers it caused him a great deal of discomfort to bind himself during the summer. I can typically identify with this issue, but instead of being top issues, it's bottom issues. If I'm uncomfortable with something, I'm going to get it taken care of, and I'm not going to let some ideological reasoning stop me from getting that surgery. My ideological reasons don't confront me in the shower, and on the toilet, and it doesn't rub and chafe me in the summer. I can work with the process and still seek to have issues addressed for a better process for following people. I don't expect the world to be perfect for me, but I do hope that I leave it better for those who follow than I had it. --Puellanivis 06:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hear, Hear, Easy Access to Surgery To Eventually Reduce Chafing! (Tounge-in cheek, I agree totally.) Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

might i make the point that many people throughout this section and others are using terminology that is in fact incorrect. One prominent example:

"male/female gender division"....this is a sex division, just as "masculine/feminine and man/woman" are gender divisions

We as a community continue to elide the distinctions between sex & gender even as we depend on such distinctions to explain, indeed to make sense of, our lives. It is exactly this carelessness, bred by decades living amongst people who neither make nor understand such points, that leads to confusion amongst ourselves as to the best way to see our commonalities and create effective coalitions. It is only in understanding our diversity, I contest, that we may celebrate it. It is only in celebrating our diversity that we may bridge across the lines that divide us. To do otherwise is to set out building a bridge without determining exactly where a river's shores lie.

also, note how using "transgender" as a personal noun is much less acceptable than using "transsexual" as a personal noun. I believe that usage such as "A transsexual was having lunch right next to me!" continues and contributes to the dehumanization of transsexual people. I propose that our articles exclusively use, and advocate the exclusive use of, transsexual as an adjective. Thus, "Transsexual women have objected..." but not "transsexuals have objected."

Finally, Virginia Prince created the general concept of "transgender" as a specific counterpoint to "transsexual" because - and this is important - Prince believed transsexual people to be sick, and indeed disgusting, and wished to divorce herself from transsexual people in every way possible. Later academic communities declared, fait a compli, that transsexual people were a subcategory of transgender people. This leads the public to the obvious conclusion that when you have a "transgender" guest speaking at an event that the speaker will be an expert on, and represent transgender perspectives - including transsexual perspectives. I don't believe that this follows, nor do I believe that we should represent to the public that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Finally, in the main article, the arguments against transsexual subsumption under the category of transgender are, in the main, "straw man" arguments. I will endeavor to add a reasonable articulation of the more realistic arguments without removing the others - it certainly does not hurt to disprove silly arguments, whether they are the most common and/or most powerfully made or not. But note, this has DIRECT BEARING on the discussion above about non-op transsexual people.

While there are many reasons that one could be resolved not to have any operations (the Tuskeegee fiasco points to reasons why one might mistrust the idea of allowing a surgeon to render unconscious and cut on the body of a person from a marginalized group, then there are economic issues, health issues in persons with other conditions, etc.), there is a very important distinction to be made between those people who believe that something is wrong with their bodies (no matter what they will/won't do about that problem) and people who believe that something is wrong with how society views their bodies.

Locating the problem in the somatic self is different than locating the problem in the social dynamic. It leads one to search for different solutions and use different tactics to arrive at those solutions. While in general everyone who encounters this "problem" gains a certain amount of understanding of the points of view of others who share similar problems, we are not the same, our thinking is not the same, and despite a near-universal desire for widespread social change with regard to gender, the protections we need until and changes we desire when the revolution comes are not the same.

We can have both, but only if we consider both perspectives. That will only happen if we understand that "trans-ing" sex is in fact different from "trans-ing" gender. One is not a subset of the other, but each can be a powerful ally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripdyke (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC) --oops, corrected a typo when I came back to see if any1 had any responses to this lil' tidbit.

I think there is some confusion between "gender" and "sex" in these discussions. I see this more and more often in discussions about trans issues, and it's kind of distressing. As humans we do have two sexes, male and female. Gender is more fluid, and while it is partly a social construct, humans do exhibit sexual dimorphism. People who want to say we shouldn't have any gender roles are constantly trying to force this onto transgender people, and then we end up with nonsense terms like "genderqueer." But it's the sex not matching the gender that is the issue. This whole article is getting away from transsexualism and is talking about cross dressers, etc., as part of a wider "transgender umbrella" which is starting to become way too vague for many. People who identify as "transsexual" have the feeling they were born into the wrong body, as far as their assigned sex, and want to change that. It's generally very specific. There will be some medical interventions, such as HRT, and FFS, but not always SRS. This is not true of cross dressers, et al. All the rest of this "transgender" stuff has been more-or-less invented by academics over analyzing things. As to not exclude anyone, everyone is thrown into the same pot, which I do not think is helpful at all. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DavidRavenMoon Please do not be insulting by calling people's identities "nonsense". Second, you are incorrect about there being two sexes: Intersex. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with EvergreenFir. Genderqueer is not a nonsense term, nor is agender, bigender, or any of many other gender identities. In addition to intersex people, there are also neutrois people who may wish to change their physical bodies to a null or neuter sex appearance. Funcrunch (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The World Health Organization's Genomic resource centre states: "Intersex is defined as a congenital anomaly of the reproductive and sexual system." It's a birth defect. So that is not a normal human sexual differentiation, and many times the reproductive system is not fully developed. It's NOT a third sexual state (or incorrectly "gender"). My issue with the term "genderqueer" is that we already had terminology that fit, such as "androgyny," and because of the association of "queer" with homosexuality, since gender has nothing to do with sexual attraction. The word "queer" only adds ambiguity when used in this context. People who didn't know the correct terminology just made something up. We have a hard enough time with cisgender people thinking that trans-women are just gay men in dresses. Let's not make it easier for them. People can do what ever they want as far as how they look, or not. They can try and suppress their gender, but when they start naming it and saying this is a standard human condition, that's more out of a need for validation. We have always had people who were more gender neutral, such as tomboy girls, or effeminate men. But this does not make them transsexuals or transgender, nor does it mean we need to make up new phrases like "genderqueer" et al. Gender was always fluid. Sex is not. Sex is binary, and humans are sexually dimorphic. If this were not the case, then we would not have transgender people, would we? The "trans* community" suffers from groupthink, and these words are an indication of that. I am speaking as a transsexual and I know may others who agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRavenMoon (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Androgny" is not at all analogous to "Genderqueer". The former is a blend of masculine and feminine presentation. The latter is an umbrella term that can include anyone who does not identify as a man or a woman. This can include bigender, agender, gender-fluid, etc.

I also speak as a transsexual (FTM - I am also agender, as I separate gender from sex), and I do not police other people's labels. And I don't see how this discussion is even relevant to Wikipedia, because the term exists and people are using it whether we personally like it or think it's accurate or not. Funcrunch (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is getting quite off topic. DavidRavenMoon, please stop making negative comments about a class of people. This is not a forum.

Alison, would this article be covered under the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Final_decision? And Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-16/Arbitration_report? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article does come under the influence of the Sexology Arb ruling - Alison ^❤ 06:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll add the box to the top of this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see DavidRavenMoon's side of the matter, and I see Funcrunch's and EvergreenFir's sides of the matter. Like I stated here, at "02:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)" and "03:26, 7 May 2014": Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction exists and third gender/genderqueer matters are usually formulated in gender terms (boy/man; girl/woman)... ...I'll grant you that I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).

If anyone wants me to provide WP:Reliable sources for my above statement, I can. I'll now leave you all to debate what you were debating. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm basically in agreement with Flyer22 here, though I'd add that there are cases of dizygotic 'individuals' comprising both XX and XY karyotypical cells. These people generally identify as either male or female and it's exceedingly rare. You could argue that they have a strong gender identity though their sex may not be so clearly defined. While humans are sexually dimorphic, Nature has a habit of throwing exceptions into the mix, so it's not all that cut and dried - Alison ^❤ 06:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there's Norrie May-Welby and (according to that article) possibly a couple of intersex people who have been legally recognized as having a neuter or indeterminate physical sex. Not gender, sex. As far as genders, I don't think it's possible to identify a quantifiable number of those since the concept of gender is so culture-dependent, but that's my non-expert opinion; I don't know if there is a definitive authority on that subject. Funcrunch (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, even in Australia, there is a legal difference between sex and intersex status. Just because some intersex people (and some other people like Norrie May-Welby) have a sex defined differently to male or female does not, ipso facto make all intersex people members of a third sex classification. That is even opposed by an international community consensus statement. It is more true to say that an intersex variation complicates initial sex assignment. Trankuility (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The quote from Benjamin about transexuals hating their genitalia and all wanting sexual reassignment surgery is biased and very offensive. It feels as if he's assuming that all preop transexuals are dieing to be transgendered when in fact some transexuals are absolutely okay with any surgery. There is a difference between being a transexual and being transgendered. Even so, most transgendered people don't identify with being transgendered after reassignment. After Transitioning they identify with their "newly assigned" sex. With that being said (tran)sexual and (trans)gender are two different things and are no longer 'subsets' of one another Unbiasedopinion7 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC) struckout by Meters pending confirmation by the poster that this was replaced by the following correction and should be deleted. Meters (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The quote from Benjamin about transexuals hating their genitalia and all wanting sexual reassignment surgery is biased and very offensive. It feels as if he's assuming that all preop transexuals are dieing to be transgendered when in fact some transexuals are absolutely okay 'without' any surgery. There is a difference between being a transexual and being transgendered. Even so, most transgendered people don't identify with being transgendered after reassignment. After Transitioning they identify with their "newly assigned" sex. With that being said (tran)sexual and (trans)gender are two different things and are no longer 'subsets' of one another Unbiasedopinion7 (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans person: I see that quote from Benjamin as being included for historical context of the origin of the term "transsexual". It isn't intended to reflect current understanding or attitudes regarding trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Unbiasedopinion7, regarding the subset matter, see what was stated in the #Cross-dressing section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Trinity FFS site

www.facialfeminizationsurgery.net ==

More on above

Same link removed from this entry numerous times already. Site in question contains content lifted without permission from at least two other sites:

• Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon
• TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison

The site has been spammed under multiple listings on Wikipedia. Many speculate the site owner is responsible for repeated attempts to reinsert the link here and elsewhere. The owner has had an unsatisfactory experience with plastic surgeon Douglas Ousterhout and has been publicizing this dissatisfaction in any venue available. Since the link appears under the Ousterhout entry and is not considered a primary trans web resource or a neutral point of view, it should not be listed under the general heading.

note:

• original comment was removed by 68.185.69.177 on 8 March and replaced that day.
• comment removed by 68.185.69.177 again on 9 March and replaced that day.

Jokestress 15:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TAKE A LOOK AT TRINITY'S SITE AND COMPARE WHAT THIS USER IS SAYING TO WHAT IS ON THE TRINITY SITE AND YOU SEE THAT Jokestress IS MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.

Jokestress Makes the claim that info has been lifted from * Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon

Compare the the link at **Trinity Site is question You will find the site uses frames, which would require you to dirctly right click on top of the Electrolysis and Laser link, then left click on open in a new link to see where it's linked to. Jokestress tries to use peoples lack of knowing how web pages work to make it seem like that site is stealing something when it's not doing any such thing.

Click on the link to the Electrolysis & Laser Treatments

Electrolysis and Laser **Electrolysis & Laser Treatments Area in question Notice the site links directly to Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon www.hairremovalpros.com being the site Jokestress claims is being lifted without permission. The site in questoin is linked to the same site Jokestress is claiming to be lifted by the Trinity site and this is the first example of slander by Jokestress

Now look at the other site Jokestress claims has had info lifted from it. TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison and compare the the links at **Trinity Site is question There are no TG-friendly Therapists listed on the site at all. Another example of slander by Jokestress

Slader after slander after slander.

I moved the above response by 68.185.69.177 below the earlier comment by me. Frames or not, the issue at hand was whether the site link should appear under this entry. Since several other Wikipedians had removed the link previously, I was following suit. Finally, the removal of comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. This is a place for discussion of conflicts, not for removing comments with which one disagrees. Jokestress 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jokestress you lied about the site and the owner time and time again. I would not be surprised that people who removed the site are past patients of Douglas Ousterhout. I think you would want to up date you statement since accused **Trinity Site is question lifting items and it has not done what you claim. The site is linked on some of the major TG sites om the web by the owners of the site. So there are bound to be people who link it here and other places. If a site is linked on one major site on the web, it will bound to get links other places by the people who read the site and like it.

OK, let's take another look at more Trinity content lifted from another site as an example. Electrologists and Laser in CA is lifted almost verbatim from California Electrolysis Page on Karyn's Transsexual Refuge. Bottom line is that the Trinity site has padded out some areas to make it seem like a general resource site, but its primary goal is to complain about a surgeon Trinity does not like. Jokestress 15:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a semi-objective bystander here, I want to state that Jokestress's website is one of the most comprehensive and genuinely useful ones out there on the Web. She takes definite stances on some things, and is a very successful client of Ousterhout, but she errs on the side of cautious scrutiny and caveat emptor in all cases. She is extremely NPOV about everything she states on her website, and I am sure her edits here are, as well. I don't have caches of the website(s) in question, so I can't swear to the absolute accuracy of her points here, but I would bet a lot of money that she is in the right here. (Is this an appropriate place to make this point? I'm still kinda new to Wikipedia.) Jiawen 04:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As another bystander here I would like to revive the this about the Trinity site that was unjustly put down by Andrea JamesJokestress's www.tsroadmap.com

Andrea James Jokestress is was not NPOV when it comes to the subject of Trinity Rose or her sitewww.facialfeminizationsurgery.net The number one reason being that Andrea James Jokestress has been taking large contributions from Dr. Douglas Ousterhout for the past ten years in the name of the events Andrea James Jokestress has been presenting. Dr. Douglas Ousterhout been presented at the top of the guest list at the events she has organized because of the contributions to the event. Kind of hard to be NPOV about ike Trinity or her sitewww.facialfeminizationsurgery.net when you are accepting large amounts of money from Dr. Douglas Ousterhout. It would also be difficult to be NPOV Andrea James Jokestress's www.tsroadmap.com website promotes Dr. Douglas Ousterhout and you are selling videos promoting Dr. Douglas Ousterhout surgeries.

Another note I woud ike to touch on is when Andrea James Jokestress was trying to keep this Trinity’s off links section, Trinity’s site and Andrea’s were in direct competition in content and scope.

I think we should talk about this matter a great deal and get some facts out including some letters that have been made pubic about Dr. Mark Zukowski and Dr. Douglas Ousterhout fighting about Trinity case. The facts of the contents of the Dr. Douglas Ousterhout's letter to Dr. Mark Zukowski is to force him to get Dr. Anne Lawrence to remove Trinity's link from her website www.annelawrence.com/twr/index.html by way of treats. And for anyone that does not know this Andrea James Jokestress and Dr. Anne Lawrence have also been debating on number of subjects for many years now through the use of their websites and other media.

I think on the next response to this I will also provide get the link for the Dr. Douglas Ousterhout letter to Dr. Mark Zukowski.

There is a great dea of history when it comes to the matter of the Trinity Rose site and her ordeal with Dr. Douglas Ousterhout that people just don't know 23 Apr 2008

Transsexualism no longer defined as a disorder in DSM-V

This is a groundbreaking change and must be included in this article. I could not see any mention of this in the previous comment. Apologies if it actually was mentioned and I missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korhanerel (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Korhanere! You are quite right. Please be bold and write about it - using a good, secondary sources. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just added a sentence with a link to the DSM-V fact sheet on gender dysphoria, since it looked like no one else had addressed this change yet. Funcrunch (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I reverted you on these changes (the top ones) you made. Like my WP:Edit summary states, see the recent discussions at Talk:Gender identity disorder about this matter, especially the article move discussions. But to sum up, the DSM-5, which is significantly criticized by the medical community, does not change everything with regard to this "disorder or not a disorder" topic. And it's in the DSM-5 book as a diagnosable condition, regardless of the name change. I'm not sure what Lova Falk has to state about the matter now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note - I will read the referenced talk page (which looks like it will take awhile!). I'm just glad to get the second part of my edit in there, as I saw no other mention in this article of the terminology change in the DSM-5 (whether or not the diagnosis is functionally different than GID). Funcrunch (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You were better informed than I was, Flyer22! Lova Falk talk 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The DSM V has been warped by political correctness and should not be followed. The correct book to follow is the DSM IV.

"Transsexualism no longer defined as a disorder in DSM-V". That is wrong, cause even in the DSM-IV there had been no "transsexualism" inside. What the APA said, that "gender identity disorder" should not called a psychiatric disorder anymore. Instead you should use "gender dysphoria" or "gender incongruence". But that hasn't to do with being transsexual, cause Transsexualiy meant something other: Being born with body-parts that differ from the birth sex. That's not a gender-related thing. Thanks. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Transsexual. Origin of the word

"Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex". This is wrong. The origin of the word (early 20th century) meant with "transsexual" body-parts that do not "fit" to the birth-sex or gender-expectations of the society (you can find that in texts about Parsifal for e.g.). A transsexual girl for e.g. is a girl who is born with masculinized body-parts. It would be good to check that and rework the article, so that the worldview from "gender dysphoria"-lobbyists (the world had been invented from Norman Fisk 1974) isn't being reproduced in an encyclopaedia. Thanks. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources please EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[2] (1904) "Parsifal und Klingsor: das Transsexuelle und das Sexuelle im Mann, auf 2 Personen verteilt." Transl.: "Parsifal and Klingsor: the transsexual and the sexual in men, diversified onto two persons". [3] (1920) "Nur das Sexuelle, nie das Asexuelle, Transsexuelle im Manne wirkt als solches auf die Frau, und nicht Schönheit, sondern volles sexuelles Begehren verlangt sie von ihm.". Translation: "only the sexual, not the asexual, transsexual in a man has an impact on women, and she doesn't demand the beauty but only full sexual desire from him". The author speaks of "in", so it is not based on society but on parts of a person in itself. It's sex, not gender. Sex and Gender are two different things. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition

The definition of: "Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex, i.e. in which a person's assigned sex at birth conflicts with their psychological gender." is cumbersome and inaccurate. Is it not more correct to say instead: "Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender other than their actual sex, and lives to a greater or lesser degree as if they are of the other gender". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs)

No. See assigned sex. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Disease", DSM, and ICD

VS6507 added a disease infobox to the page, restoring the content originally added by an IP editor on Feb 10. in this edit. At the very least this is a contentious edit and should be discussed.

Should we include the {{infobox disease}} for this since there is an ICD code for it? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The use of {{infobox disease}} is unnecessarily contentious. Having the IDC codes in the body would be useful, but the use of infobox:disease in the lede is undue. Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the contentiousness. I note ICD 11 beta has dropped transsexualism altogether in favour of gender incongruence. DSM hasn't listed transsexuality since rev 4.Chocolate vittles (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose changing name of page from Transsexualism to Transsexual.

"Transsexualism" as a descriptor for transsexual people is a word that's historically been used in older versions of the DSM, and by sexologists and radical feminists. It's often used in works that are critical of transsexual people.

I noted in editing the page on Sheila Jeffreys, a radical feminist Australian academic with hateful views on transsexual people, that an editor defending Jeffreys was very quick to change my use of transsexuality to "transsexualism". This got me looking at the use of the word.

"Transsexualism" has been dropped from the DSM in favour of less problematic language. The GLAAD media style manual states of "Transgenderism":

This is not a term commonly used by transgender people. This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to "a condition." Refer to being transgender instead, or refer to the transgender community. You can also refer to the movement for transgender equality.

Just as "transgenderism" is used in a dehumanising way, "transsexualism" is also used to dehumanise transsexual people and to reduce transsexuality to a theory, ignoring growing consensus that transsexuality is an innate part of human gender identity.

Note that Wikipedia has no page called "Lesbianism", nor "Homosexualism".

Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since I am the editor you mention without naming, I have to say that none of my edits were concerned with "defending Jeffreys". I am not going to get into a discussion of her views, but suffice it to say they are not mine. As I made repeatedly clear, it's perfectly acceptable to mention criticism of Jeffreys in the article; it's just that this has to be done in an appropriate way. As far as the title of this article is concerned, I think personally that it is fine the way it is. "Transsexualism" is a widely used term, and not at all the equivalent of "Homosexualism" (an eccentric, seldom-employed expression). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Transsexualism is a very rarely used word in comparison to transsexual. Google trends shows that "transsexual" dominates both "transsexualism" and "transsexuality in all categories. Even when constrained to the books and literature, reference, and law and government categories, transsexual is the only one to get significant hits.

The really interesting trend for me comes from graphing "transsexualism" and "TERF" together.. I'd call that a strong correlation. For those who aren't aware, "TERF" is an acronym for "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist". Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Probably best to start a WP:RM. I agree that "transsexualism" is no longer the WP:COMMONNAME and the page should be moved. We need to avoid WP:NEOLOGISM, but I think "Transsexual" would be best. But this page is about the medical diagnosis so we need to see that it's called in that context. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Transsexualism → Transsexual – "transsexualism" doesn't conform to WP:COMMONNAME and breaks WP:POVTITLE. Please see discussion above. Chocolate vittles (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – I don't understand the problem. And WP:NOUN suggests that the noun form is better than the adjective form. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as per considering the person, not the "condition". Trannsexualism I believe used to have very negative connotations. Most references are made by the description "transsexual". Dicklyon, in regard to WP:NOUN please see results of searches on "she's a transsexual" and "he's a transsexual". GregKaye 12:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, transexual can also be a noun; some of my friends are transsexuals. But the article appears to be about the condition. A complete rewrite would be needed to make it about the trans persons themselves. It looks to me like that would be a good idea; but a move will not accomplish it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the nub of the issue is that there is ongoing debate as to whether transsexuality is a condition (subject to cure) or a natural variation of human existence, as with corresponding issues around sexuality. By using the term "transsexualism", wikipedia is giving weight to one side of the argument, hence WP:POVTITLE. I note the DSM has backed away from listing transsexuality per se as a diagnosis for just this reason, and are now instead listing gender dysphoria. Chocolate vittles (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Unless we're going to have a page on cissexualism, it makes sense to use the word transsexual. Funcrunch (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason that we don't have homosexualism or transgenderist. Trankuility (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment In the interest of pointing out what might be most consistent, we have articles on homosexuality and heterosexuality, emphasis on -ity. Samsara 17:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If such a suffix were commonly used for this topic, I'd gladly use it for the page title. But it's not. :-/ EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Transsexuality" abides by WP:POVTITLE, which is certainly an improvement. Not nearly as common as "transsexual" though. I'd support either. 130.116.96.49 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: With this edit, Chocolate vittles changed the lead wording as though the article has already been moved to Transsexual. Since it looks like the article will be moved to Transsexual, the lead change is not a problem. But I do want to point out that the word transsexualism should not be completely removed from the article, since sources, especially the medical sources, specifically use that wording. Regarding what was stated in the #Propose changing name of page from Transsexualism to Transsexual. section above and this one, the word transsexualism is not on the same offensive level as faggot, nigger or homosexualism. And as noted, homosexualism is not a common term anyway. And while our Lesbian article is not titled Lesbianism, lesbianism is hardly an offensive term and the Lesbian article uses it. Many transgender people, including transsexual people, do not have a problem with the term transsexualism, so I view moving the title to Transsexual as much a POV move as keeping it titled Transsexualism is to others. I refrain from voting on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of my editing you referenced was in fact updating the section on the DSM to reflect that the APA has abandoned use of the term "transsexualism" as unnecessarily pathologising and stigmatising, and that the WHO is well on the way to doing the same with the upcoming ICD-11. If there was indeed a wikipedia article called transsexual, where we could talk about transsexual people as people and not a disease, I'd be a whole lot less strident. This isn't as pressing an issue for the gay and lesbian communities now as it has been historically, as the war against the pathologisation of gay sexuality has largely been faught and won.Chocolate vittles (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Where does the DSM state anything about the term transsexualism being "unnecessarily pathologising and stigmatising"? If it states that, you would have mentioned it already. The DSM change is regarding the diagnosis. This is the source currently used for that material in the article, and it is about the term gender identity disorder vs. the term gender dysphoria. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The DSM itself makes no such claim, as it makes no attempt to explain itself. Before the publication of each edition of the DSM, however, there is debate on what the language should be. Transsexualism was dropped between DSM-3 and DSM-4. That was more than 20 years ago, so details of the working groups etc are not well represented on the web. I did find this which talks about the change from transsexualism to gender identity disorder. Of note: "Between the publication of DSM-III and DSM-IV, the term "transgendered" began to be used in various ways. Some employ it to refer to those with unusual gender identities in a value free manner-that is, without a connotation of psychopathology. Some professionals informally use the term to refer to any person with any type of gender problem."

Of course since then there has been a very strong push to further destigmatise the language, with gender identity disorder from DSM 4 being dropped in favour of gender dysphoria in DSM 5. The reasoning for this is that the APA saw that there was no utility in classifying transsexual people as disordered once they'd completed transition.

The only reason ICD-10 still uses transsexualism is that it's now fully 25 years old. The language has moved quite a way in the last quarter century, alongside acceptance of transsexual people and the consensus in the medical community that transsexuality is a natural variation of human gender identity rather than a disorder or disease.Chocolate vittles (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:Reliable sources in the "Propose changing name of page from Transsexualism to Transsexual." section, or this section, supporting the notion that the term transsexualism is significantly offensive to transgender people; that's my main point. And to state that the "only reason ICD-10 still uses transsexualism is that it's now fully 25 years old" is an opinion. Either way, I've stated my thoughts on this matter, and I still refrain from voting on the article title. Flyer22 (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Merger Proposal with Transgender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: Not merged. -sche (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

---

I think they should be merged! Note: I'm the person who add the request--88.104.141.99 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Two distinct ideas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• [ WP:Edit conflict ]... Comment: As seen on this talk page and at Talk:Transgender, people commonly consider "transsexual" a branch of "transgender," and/or distinguish the two. Sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably, but transgender is the broader term. Transgender is also an umbrella term regarding other identities. Both "transsexual" and "transgender" are WP:Notable enough and distinguished enough to be their own Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. Funcrunch (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Transgender refers to people who transgress gender norms. Transsexual people seek to live and be accepted as members of their sex of identity. Note that many transsexual people see themselves as largely cisgendered, because they do not transgress gender norms after transition. Chocolate vittles (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per EvergreenFir and Flyer22. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Two different concepts. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons above. BronxGirl6 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - given the consensus here, anyone want to consider the lumping-together in Category:Transgender and transsexual women and Category:Transgender and transsexual men? - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, what are you proposing regarding those categories? Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Presumably that they be un-lumped, i.e. split into separate categories for "transgender" and "transsexual". But inasmuch as transsexual is generally considered either a subset of transgender or interchangeable with it, a lot of people would end up being double-categorized (either intentionally, or by users uninitiated into whatever idiosyncratic method of picking one category over the other might be devised), and I don't think a split would be either necessary, worthwhile, or wise. -sche (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Very much agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also agreed. Funcrunch (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, probably too complicated to sort; just wanted some input on it. There will be mistakes either way, but it's probably easiest and simpler to just leave it as-is. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one to find lists of trans people creepy? It's stalking behaviour. I'd advocate for deletion, at least until there's corresponding lists of cisgender and cissexual people.Chocolate vittles (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not creepy to me, and it is technically not a list (well, I suppose it is, but anyway). The reason we don't have categories of cisgender/cissexual people is for the same reason that we don't have Category:Heterosexual women or Category:Heterosexual men but we do have Category:Lesbians, Category:Gay men, Category:Bisexual women and Category:Bisexual men, and similar. It is for the same reason that we don't have Category:Heterosexual people or Category:Heterosexuals but we do have Category:LGBT people. And that reason is because, due to the fact that heterosexuality is the norm/usual, a person being heterosexual usually is not newsworthy; it's also due to the fact that cisgender/cissexual and heterosexual categories would be too big to be manageable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To add on to what I stated: People are presumed to be cisgender/cisexual and heterosexual unless they state otherwise. Heterosexual people usually don't go on the record to state that they are heterosexual, just like people usually don't go on record about their gender identity. Therefore, having categories about cisgender/cisexual and heterosexual people would largely be based on assumption, which is a WP:BLPCAT violation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A good number of the people in these lists didn't choose to out themselves. For example Rachael Padman, who was outed by Germaine Greer in a particularly vicious and transphobic attack. The gutter press picked up on it, so it could be argued as newsworthy, but still plenty creepy. What are Wikipedias standards in issues like this?Chocolate vittles (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No Wikipedia standards for that, as far as I'm aware, other than what the WP:BLP policy states about handling information about living people. You could ask at that policy's talk page. Our WP:Outing policy is about Wikipedia editors. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that the first paragraph of our WP:Outing policy currently includes the following line: "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." But that is about someone outing another person on Wikipedia. It doesn't pertain to reporting what WP:Reliable sources have reported (in other words, a person who was already outed by WP:Reliable sources). Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Whilst I understand the logic ("transsexual" is often considered under the "transgender" umbrella term), I feel like there are enough distinctions to warrant two separate articles on the subject. Also worth noting that there are separate Wikipedia articles for Homosexuality, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexuality, Queer etc. instead of all being in the LGBT article. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It's simply different enough to get different articles. Jort93 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated above, the two articles, while similar in some ways, are not similar enough to be merged into one. Transsexual and transgender are different, transsexual being acting differently from the gender (ex. female acting only slightly male) while trasgender refers to acting not at all like the assigned gender. Thunderbolt Hawk (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not the same thing, and merging them only confuses the point more. Gender and sex are fully separate, and that is the whole point of the concept in the first place. TheWizardsApprentice (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The articles are kept separate due to notability and the confusion between the two terms due to common confusion about sex and gender being two separate things. To merge the articles would compound this issue and create even more confusion and an unnecessarily long article. A 'see also' link may be appropriate but certainly not a merge.

I think the consensus on this merge is an oppose, yes? I will take down the banner within 48 hours, unless anyone disagrees?

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for a see also link for "transgender" since this article already addresses/links to the transgender topic, and with good reason. WP:See also is for links not already found in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What about WP:HAT? "[B]ecause the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names" is a reason for having a hat note, and I think the general public would possibly be confused about the two terms. That was the only reason that I had in mind.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that a WP:Hat is needed in this case, since the transgender aspect is seen from the table of contents...and the table contents is high up there right underneath the lead (WP:Lead). It would be better to develop the lead so that it addresses the topic of transgender. But if others agree with you adding a WP:Hat, or don't mind you adding one, feel free. I don't think that the "Not to be confused with" WP:Hat should be added, though, since these terms are sometimes used interchangeably by scholarly sources or by some LGBT members who don't adhere to the distinction between the two terms. But a part of the article does currently state that they are not synonymous; so if we are going to go with that, essentially stating it in the WP:Hatnote is not too different. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Transgender is much more broader than transsexual. The transgender label can include those who identify as male but don't desire to physically transition to a "male" body. It also includes genderqueer identities. That is my understanding of it at least but since so many people disagree with what the label means, I don't call myself transgender often.
• Also, a lot of people who identify as transsexual don't identify with the transgender label. Andrea Carter (at your service | my evil deads) 00:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been a month since this RM was opened (and three days since Dr Crazy noted that the tags in the articles could be removed), and it seems that except for the nominator there is unanimous opinion that the articles should not be merged. -sche (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding a WP:HAT to Transgender and vice versa

Would people particularly object or support the introduction of a hatnote to Transgender and vice versa from Transsexual? Perhaps the "See also" or "Further information" template, though I am open to suggestions. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Moved my post down.

Dr Crazy 102, regarding this, perhaps go ahead and add the "Not to be confused with" tag. But, regarding this, such a tag is not needed on the Transgender article. As noted above, "transsexual" is part of the transgender umbrella. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

And either way, the "See also" and "Further information" hatnotes being added to either article for these terms is completely redundant since these terms/topics are linked/addressed in both articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've put up a "distinguish" template for the moment. If anyone feels that is not the right template, let us know and see if you can find a better template. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that this is the correct template. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to assume there is silent consensus here then, until further notice. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

-sche, regarding this, I clearly know what you mean. But that See also tag is silly, in my opinion, per what I stated above. At least the "Not to be confused with" tag makes sense, given the #Merger Proposal with Transgender discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And, again, a part of the article already states that they are not synonymous. So stating it with the hatnote as well is a problem, how? As we know, while these terms are commonly used interchangeably for whatever reason, they are distinguished enough. A person being transgender obviously doesn't mean that the person is transsexual. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

See also adds weight to the argument that transsexual and transgender is synonymous, which is very POV. A distinguish hat note is also POV, but at least follows the consensus that we got to with the proposal to merge. I'd much rather remove the hat note altogether than have a see also.Chocolate vittles (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The distinguish template was replaced with the see-also template, but I will revert back to the distinguish then if that is the more-consensus-based approach. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I object to the use of "distinguish" for the reasons I stated. It appears we have no consensus for including any hatnote, and a general feeling that it's best (or at least better) to have no hatnote — the links throughout the article (prominent in the "transgender topics" box near the lead) ought to be suffcient, as Flyer pointed out in the past. -sche (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said to Chocolate vittles on on their talk page, there are only 2 links out of a total of around 65 mentions of the word "transexual*" (I used Ctrl+F, so may be less). So your "links throughout the article" statement seems a bit POV without facts, unless I have missed links? Then feel free to let me know if there are actually more links. Until then, there are not "links throughout the article", there are 2 links, hence my addition of the hatnote. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A lead is supposed to be a summary of an article, and "Relation to transgender identities" is such an important (definitional) part of this article that it has its own thus-headered section, so I think it is necessary and appropriate to work 1-2 sentences summarizing the relation(s) of transsexual to transgender into the lead, which would have the side effect of making a link to transgender very prominent. Perhaps we should start a new section on this talk page to discuss what those sentences should say. -sche (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and so long as there is a sentence in the lead explaining this then I disagree with the hatnote being used.

As of now, I've added this sentence to the article. If anyone objects to this wording, please tell me. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I object. Asserting that transsexual people are a member of a transgender umbrella is POV. Many people see transgender and transsexual as different things, not one as a subset of the other. a significant number of transsexual people live cisgender lives after transition, and don't appreciate bing lumped in with gender diverse people. By all means spell out the complexity of the relationship and non-relationship between transsexual and transgender, but simply making an assertion in the lede that transsexual is a subset is not the way to do it.

Neither is asserting that transsexual is an identity. Again, there is no consensus that it is. While many people do identify as transsexual, many others see it as a condition rather than an identity.Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What do the sources say about "transsexualism"^{(not the best word but you know what I mean)} being either an identity and/or as being part of the transgender umbrella term? We should be using the sources to settle this argument of POV of separate identity vs. sub-identity of transgender.

As I said earlier at the proposal merger, my reasoning for the hatnote was, and still is, that "because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names" and they are commonly confused by the general public. Have a nice day, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate vittles, this addition by Zumoarirodoka is not a WP:POV violation. Keep in mind that Wikipedia defines POV differently than the general public does, and that Zumoarirodoka did not add the text in a definitive way; he used the word "considered." That transsexual is an aspect of being transgender is well-documented in the literature on the topic of transgender, which is why it's noted as being under the transgender umbrella in the Transgender article. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. If I must, I certainly will pull out various WP:Reliable sources to support the case that "transsexual is a part of the transgender umbrella." That some transsexual people don't identify as being a part of that umbrella can also be noted...with WP:Reliable sources. And both the Transgender and Transsexual articles already address disputes with the terminology. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why the addition to the lede is necessary, except to push one side of the transsexual = transgender argument. There's already a quite meaty section in the article on the relationship between transsexual and transgender, where both sides of the argument are put. There are strong disputes with the terminology. That is self evident. We shouldn't be advocating one side or the other, so the section on terminology is appropriate, but not the lede, except for perhaps a note to the reader that the relationship is controversial. Chocolate vittles (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." The relation of transsexual to transgender is a large part of the body of the article, and correctly so, since it is a defining element of the topic. -sche (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, transgender being an umbrella term, in and of itself, has no consensus, as mentioned in the section on terminology in the transsexual article. There is plenty of history of the term relating to a specific subset of gender diverse people (Virginia Prince). The terminology is a very long way from being settled. Chocolate vittles (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate vittles, with regard to stating that "transgender being an umbrella term, in and of itself, has no consensus," the point is that many WP:Reliable sources cite it as an umbrella term. Of course, it is also defined strictly, and the strict definition is what people usually mean when stating that someone is transgender. When calling someone transgender, people usually don't mean someone who simply cross dresses, for example. This is why we are supposed to cover both aspects, with WP:Due weight (read that policy if you have not already read it). The point is also that, as -sche and I have pointed out above, the transgender aspect should be noted in the lead; this includes the fact that it is commonly considered an umbrella term that includes "transsexual." Doing that is the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 could you please pull out the sources? I've taken a look at the online parts of the Bibliography, not the books though as I'm currently nowhere near a decent library. I am happy to take a look through the first 20 online-available sources and I have had a look through the bibliography but could not find anything specifically referring to our current conundrum of definitional controversy, though about half the online sources were 404 links and I updated the Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders from the 404 Version 6 to the current Version 7.

I would also recommend Chocolate vittles that you do the same for the argument that the disputes of definition do not require a "possibly confused with" or "distinguish" template WP:HAT. Thank you all, have a lovely day/night, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(Returning to the subject of a hatnote,) the "see also" hatnote was removed on the grounds that it's "adding weight to transsexual as a synonym for transgender", but I don't see how that's the case at all. As its documentation says, {{see also}} "is used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other, related, titles at the top of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout." Is there any serious dispute thattransgender and transsexual are related topics, titles, and words? "See also [this other topic]" is as neutral a way of directing someone to also look at another topic as I can think of; whereas, "distinguish [x from y]" is obviously a POV command. "See also" doesn't connote synonymy; indeed, over on Wiktionary (and in my experience also on Wikipedia) "see also" sections are firmly distinct from "synonyms" sections — you might say "see also" is to be distinguished from "synonyms"... ;-p -sche (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for how to summarize the "Relation to transgender identities" section in the lead; I welcome feedback:

• The use of the words transsexual (coined in 1949) and transgender (coined in 1965) has changed over time; since the 1990s transexual has generally been considered a subset of transgender, and many transgender people find the word transsexual pejorative, but some who have undergone SRS prefer it.

references

Better sourcing of the last part of the sentence would be nice. Also, the "Relation to transgender identities" section of the body of the article is a bit of a mess (it contradicts itself slightly in places) and needs updating. -sche (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason the relation to transgender identities section contradicts itself is that there are very different points of view on whether or not the "transgender umbrella" includes transsexual people. Many transsexual people see the continual attempts of inclusion of transsexuality within an overarching transgender term as appropriation of transsexuality by crossdressers and gender queer people. This is the reason this stuff doesn't belong in the lede. Promoting transgender to the lede of the article adds considerable weight to one side of the argument or the other. We're not going to get consensus. This is an argument that's been ongoing since the 1990s. FWIW, many transsexual people find the word transgender pejorative, as it reduces their legitimate identities to a desire to wear women's clothes. Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

-sche is on the right track. Drcrazy102, you and others should look on Google Books for better sources and sources to support transgender being an umbrella term that includes transsexual and/or how strictly the term transgender is used. As seen by this, this and this LGBT discussion, I turn to Google Books first to support my arguments. And I always support them when challenged on them. Using scholarly sources for these matters is better than using media sources or LGBT organization sources. I will list sources here in a day or so, using Template:Collapse. But as I've stated before, gathering sources is a pain. And, Chocolate vittles, I will see about gathering sources for your point of view as well. But we should be following the WP:Lead guideline, and should not be letting WP:Advocacy get in our way on that. The topic of transgender and its relation to transsexual belong in the lead; that's the way it is. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an updated wording with more sources. If there are no objections (or if only one user is objecting but there's consensus for inclusion), I intend to add something like this to both transsexual and transgender soon. Suggestions for improved wording are welcome.

• The use of the terms transsexual (coined in 1949) and transgender (coined in 1965) has changed over time; since the 1990s transgender has generally been considered an umbrella of which transsexual is a subset. Many trans people prefer the term transgender and find the word transsexual pejorative, but some people who desire or undergo SRS prefer the term transsexual and reject transgender.

references

-sche (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with adding your proposed addition. And given that, and what others might add with WP:Reliable sources to support their additions, I might not need to list any sources here. You are proposing that addition for the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC)

I would recommend adding at the end of the proposed addition: "... due to sex and gender being two separate labels.": That would also show the controversy between the gender vs. sex aspect of the terminology, but fully supportive of this going into the lead per lead policy. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, WP:Lead is a guideline, not a policy, but we should generally adhere to it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but where you say "many trans people", I think it's important to point out that most of those trans people wouldn't qualify as transsexual anyway, as only a subset desire SRS or identify as opposite their assigned sex. I'd feel a lot better if many was removed and some was inserted. It's not ok for non-transsexual people to tell transsexual people how to identify. Chocolate vittles (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point by Dr Crazy that we should include some explanation of the distinction between the terms / the reason for the "controversy". To keep things brief, we could say just the following in the lead:

• The term transsexual (denoting people who desire to or do change their sex through surgery to match their gender identity) is generally considered a subset of transgender, an umbrella term which includes men and women (and sometimes non-binary people) whose gender identity does not match their birth sex.

Incidentally, this highlights that the first few sentences of the current lead may need revision, because they define transsexual identically to how the article transgender defines that term, yet the reason the articles weren't merged is that they're not identical.

In any case, we could then go into more detail in the body:

• The use of the terms transsexual (coined in 1949) and transgender (coined in 1965) has changed over time. Since the 1990s, transgender has generally been considered an umbrella designation for all men and women whose gender identity does not match their birth sex (it sometimes also includes non-binary people, although these are often distinguished as genderqueer), and transsexual has been considered a subset of it. Many trans people prefer the designation transgender and reject transsexual, but some people who change their sex prefer the designation transsexual and reject transgender.

references

I kept "many" because that's the word the references use. In my experience the references are correct — most trans people reject transsexual as an overly clinical term imposed by outsiders (the medical community, starting in the 1960s) which places too much emphasis on sex (which many trans people can't afford expensive surgery to change) and on sexuality. -sche (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lets work through what's going on here. Many people, who identify as trans something but not as transsexual, prefer the term transgender, because that's how they identify. Many people who identify as transsexual prefer the term transsexual, because that's how they identify. Good so far? So now, a majority of people who identify as transgendered reject a transsexual identity and deride people who identify as transsexual. Why are we paying attention to these people?

I'll swap things around so that the transgender people can see why I'm so angry about this.

Many people, who identify as straight but not as trans prefer the term straight because that's how they identify. Many people who identify as trans prefer the term trans because that's how they identify. So now, a majority of people who identify as straight reject a trans identity and deride people who identify as trans.

When framed like this, it's bigotry. So why is it fair game for people who identify as transgendered but not as transsexual to have at the definition of transsexual?

I'll posit that practically _all_ transsexual people who identify as transsexual prefer transsexual to transgender, and practically _all_ transgender people who identify as transgender prefer transgender to transsexual, because otherwise they'd identify otherwise, wouldn't they? Saying that many trans (practically none of whom would identify as transsexual) people see transsexual as pejorative is a completely useless thing to say, and akin to saying that many cis people find trans pejorative (which they obviously do). Making the implication that transsexual is therefore pejorative to people who identify as such is incredibly dishonest and bigoted against people with a perfectly reasonable self identity. Chocolate vittles (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Per what I stated in this edit, I think that editors need to check that the sources you added here and here are being used appropriately. This is because you have more than once strayed from what sources actually state, as seen here (followup note here) and here (followup edit here), and WP:Synthesis is not allowed. Also, you should always provide the page numbers for book sources that you add. Your text states "some transsexual people reject transgender as a label imposed by cisgender bureaucrats and psychologists." I doubt that's sticking to what the sources state. Furthermore, it's clearly not just "cisgender bureaucrats and psychologists" who include transsexual people under the label "transgender." Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Well, as you know by this, this and this edit, -sche pointed out that you were using the sources inappropriately, and fixed that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting the body of the article

Separate from discussion about rewriting the lead (see above), I've started rewriting the body of the article. Most of the changes I've made have been simple copyediting — improving wording and re-arranging paragraphs so (e.g.) Benjamin's popularization of the word transsexual is discussed in one place rather than half-repetitively in two places separated by a single paragraph about something else. I've edited in increments and with edit summaries, so that it should be easy to see what each edit changed, and to undo individual edits. Beyond copyediting, one major thing I've done is begin to rewrite the "origin" and "relation" sections, which as I noted above and in my edit summaries cover much the same ground repetitively, and contradict themselves in places along the way. -sche (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Valentine's point of view (especially as originally worded) doesn't align well with the situation which the other RSes describe; I'm not sure how to include it in a way that is NPOV and makes sense. (Btw, Leslie Feinberg's article uses "transgender", not "transsexual", to describe her. Does that jive with her views on the topic?) -sche (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The section, as it stands now, is not optimal, but I'm willing to say "meh, whatever, good enough". We could even drop the header so that it was just included in the "Relationship of transsexual to transgender" section. -sche (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to elaborate on this edit, which Flyer22 asked about. As a trans male I am well aware that many trans men are not satisfied with the current state of phalloplasty, and I am also aware of the difference between phalloplasty and metoidioplasty. What I am asking for a citation for is the specific wording that phalloplasty "does not result in a fully erectile, sexually sensate penis." I mentioned metoidioplasty because that is a procedure available to trans men that can indeed provide this (though in a much smaller form than phalloplasty can provide). Funcrunch (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The text is about phalloplasty, though. Yes, phalloplasty may involve metoidioplasty, as mentioned in the Phalloplasty article, but phalloplasty does not result in a penis that acts like a fully-functional penis in the same vein as those born with that male anatomy (cisgender males). Erectile aspects are certainly an issue in that case. I will source this if no one else does first. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific wording in the text I quoted was not "fully-functional penis," it was "fully erectile, sexually sensate penis." This might seem like nitpicking, but the distinction is important. Regardless, a citation should be provided. Funcrunch (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

To further clarify - as metoidioplasty is able to provide a "fully erectile, sexually sensate penis" - though like phalloplasty, the procedure is very expensive and can have many complications - this should either be noted in the sentence, or the sentence should be reworded, in addition to providing a citation. I don't want Wikipedia to add to the misconceptions about FTM genital surgery. Funcrunch (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

By "fully-functional penis," I meant that to cover "fully erectile, sexually sensate penis." Again, the text in question is about phalloplasty, not metoidioplasty. And phalloplasty, when involving the construction of an entire penis, does not result in a "fully erectile, sexually sensate penis." Well, I guess that depends on how a person defines "sexually sensate." But as seen with this link (followup edit here), I added sources to support that material, and contrasted it with metoidioplasty. And this 1999 FTM: Female-to-Male Transsexuals in Society source, from Indiana University Press, pages 406-411, shows trans men commenting on how phalloplasty results in the creation of a flaccid (or somewhat flaccid) penis that is the same size as an erect penis and barely has any feeling in it, among other complaints. Sure, that source is from 1999, and phalloplasty has improved a little since then, but trans men still comment the same way about phalloplasty. Some trans men are satisfied with phalloplasty, but they are the minority when compared to how other trans men feel about it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your revised wording of the paragraph. The long pullquotes in the citations weren't really necessary. I wasn't arguing with you about the efficacy of and satisfaction with phalloplasty. I simply wanted acknowledgment in that section that metoidioplasty is also an option pursued by trans men with somewhat greater success, which you have now noted in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

For contentious articles like this, it is often helpful, or what is best, to include quotes in the references; this is in case the URL goes dead or in case the source has no URL that links to the quote. It takes care of a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue (an aspect of it anyway), and is why others have been including quotes in the references lately. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Transgender Day of Remembrance, Transgender at Work

This article includes a section on the "Transgender Day of Remembrance", and sections on organizations like "Transgender At Work", "National Transgender Advocacy Coalition", "Transgender Law and Policy Institute", etc. These events and organizations advocate for trans (transgender) people in general, and even have "transgender" in their names; logically, they should be moved to [[transgender]]. -sche (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Chocolate vittles (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cross-dressing

May I ask Flyer22, Chocolate vittles, and -sche to please discuss the contentious issue of whether cross-dressers fall under the transgender "umbrella" here, rather than solely in edit summaries?

Without weighing in on the issue myself: Flyer22, I fail to see what Caitlyn Jenner's gender identity has to do with this subject, when she is merely one of thousands of trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this are the edits currently in question.

-sche and I are not stating that tranvestite/cross dresser is not under the transgender umbrella; after all, we are two of the editors who have noted to Chocolate vittles that transgender is commonly considered an umbrella term that includes "transsexual." -sche and I are stating that the term transgender, despite being an umbrella term, is often used strictly to refer to a person's permanent gender identity. When scholars, medical sources, LGBT guides, and LGBT activists mention "transgender," they usually don't mean "cross dresser"; they mean a person whose assigned sex does not align with their identified sex/gender (their gender identity). They usually don't meant a temporary gender identification/gender expression, as is what happens in cross dressing or commonly with regard to those who identify as genderqueer. This can be seen with transgender people who are upset with Chris Crocker for identifying as transgender. As is known, Chocolate vittles has repeatedly rejected WP:Due weight (an aspect of WP:POV) and cited POV issues with any statement that transgender is commonly considered an umbrella term that includes transsexual people, and that many (seemingly most) transsexual people prefer the term transgender to transsexual. This is despite the WP:Reliable sources -sche provided validating just that. Chocolate vittles is one of the people who insists on distinguishing transsexual people from transgender people; so, in order to drive home that point of view, Chocolate vittles has been adding references that cite tranvestites/cross dressers as a part of the transgender umbrella, as if we supported the viewpoint of stating that cross dressers are not a part of that umbrella. Chocolate vittles, going by the edit summaries, has been acting like a person stating that they are transgender usually means any category under the transgender umbrella. But that is not correct when looking at the published literature; people who state that they are transgender usually mean that their assigned sex does not align with their identified sex/gender, and that they will be permanently transitioning or have permanently transitioned to their actual gender identity. I cited Caitlyn Jenner as an example of that. Similar applies to other public figures who have come out as transgender. They don't mean that they are cross dressers, and they sometimes do what they can to dispel the assumption that they simply cross dress. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 and -sche are doing their utmost to push a purely political line that transsexual is an old offensive term that's been replaced by transgender. While this is a legitimate point of view, it's just one point of view amongst several. An equally legitimate point of view, clearly satisfying wp:due weight, as shown in the sources I've added, is that many transsexual people feel that transgender is a sloppy, poorly defined word that's popular with cis therapists, social scientists and bureaucrats, who like having something that they can group all non-cis people together with. -sche and flyer22 are keen to expunge any source showing that transgender includes transvestite people, and similarly any source relating to Virginia Prince, who used transgenderist to specifically refer to trans people who transition but eschew medical assistance. For reference, Prince was for decades editor of tapestry magazine (these days called transgender tapestry), which was distributed internationally to tens of thousands of "heterosexual crossdressers". She used that magazine and the tri-Ess organisation she founded (with tens of thousands of members world wide) to push her views. I don't particularly care for the views of Prince. But they're a significant part of transgender history, inconvenient as they may be to those with a political agenda.

if we're using celebrities to define words, how about Eddy Izzard, a cross dressing comedian who also identifies (and is referred as by media) as transgender

For the record, I've not, in any of my edits, said that transsexual people aren't transgender. I've simply pointed out the plain, obvious, verifiable truth that there is significant disagreement, argument, and politics around trans identities, and that many people who identify as transsexual do not identify s transgender.

The statement "When scholars, medical sources, LGBT guides, and LGBT activists mention "transgender," they usually don't mean "cross dresser"; they mean a person whose assigned sex does not align with their identified sex/gender (their gender identity). " is editorialising. If these people are excluding crossdressers, use sources to prove it.

There's a pertinent signpost that might help you understand how I feel here. Trans people (especially transsexual people) are a tiny minority. While it's sweet that you've discovered Caitlyn Jenner, like millions of other cis people, that doesn't mean you're suddenly the world expert on other people's identities. I'm feeling really bullied by your overuse of wiki bureaucracy here.Chocolate vittles (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Stating that "Flyer22 and -sche are doing their utmost to push a purely political line that transsexual is an old offensive term that's been replaced by transgender" is incorrect. From day one, as seen here and here, I told you not to engage in WP:Advocacy; and that is because, from day one, that is what you have engaged in. Your advocacy is also clear from the #Adding a WP:HAT to Transgender and vice versa discussion above. You don't apply WP:Neutral (WP:POV) correctly, so for you to cite it or its WP:Due weight section in this case does not lend you any credit. WP:Due weight is clear that we mostly go by the majority viewpoint and give that viewpoint more weight than the minority viewpoint. If you have a problem with that, then take it up on that policy's talk page. Stating that "-sche and flyer22 are keen to expunge any source showing that transgender includes transvestite people" is false, as should already be clear from what I stated above in this section. We are keen on you not misrepresenting sources, as you've repeatedly done, and making sure that you are not giving WP:Undue weight to matters. As for your "Oh, a cisgender person who discovered Caitlyn Jenner" remark, you don't know if I identify as cisgender. I identify as a female/woman (and I am a genetic female), but so does/is genderqueer Ruby Rose. I am well-versed in LGBT issues, and I know what I am talking about on them, which is why I provide WP:Reliable sources for my arguments on these matters, and that can certainly apply to my "When scholars, medical sources, LGBT guides, and LGBT activists mention 'transgender'" statement. That statement is not WP:Editorializing unless it's in the article and I am not following what the sources state. Also see WP:Not a bureaucracy. Following WP:Policies and guidelines is just the way we should be editing. There is no valid WP:Ignore all rules reason for anything you've done at this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

By "genetic" female I assume you meant you were assigned female at birth. I very much doubt you know what specific chromosomes you have, unless you've had them tested. And Ruby Rose currently identifies as genderfluid, and as with Caitllyn Jenner, is only one of thousands of gender-variant people, and her celebrity status has little to do with how we should speak of transsexuality and gender identification. Funcrunch (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspected that as soon as I stated "genetic female," someone would object. I indeed meant "genetic female" to cover "assigned female at birth." And as seen with this edit, I've already been clear that "Both transgender and transsexual people generally prefer 'assigned sex' instead of 'biological sex'." But people usually don't talk like that, except for in transgender discussions. So, yes, in this discussion, perhaps I should have stated "assigned female at birth." But people, including scientists, state "biologically female" or "genetically female" far more than they state "assigned female at birth." And from discussions I've had with various transgender people, including some on Wikipedia, they prefer "genetically female" to "biologically female" for different reasons, some of which are outlined in the Causes of transsexualism article. For example, as seen in this link, Julia Serano asks, "as someone who has had estrogen in her system for five years now, shouldn't I be considered a 'biological' woman?" ... So, yes, I went with "genetic female" (though I know that Julia Serano and some other transgender people have a problem with "genetic female" as well). As for my chromosomes, I have no comment on that. And Ruby Rose identifies both as genderfluid (which is often considered synonymous with the term genderqueer, as you know) and as a woman. That is clear from the current state of the Personal life section of her Wikipedia article, and from comments she has made in sources not shown there. Otherwise, I would not have named her. She has called herself female, a woman, a lesbian, and genderfluid. And she goes by feminine pronouns. As for using celebrities as examples, they are often used as examples in discussions. I happen to be a person who occasionally uses them as examples. Better to do that than to cite someone that I personally know, someone whose transgender identity cannot be validated with WP:Reliable sources. Citing a public figure on transgender issues does not mean that the people doing the citing are not aware that a transgender public figure "is only one of thousands of gender-variant people, and [their] celebrity status has little to do with how we should speak of transsexuality and gender identification." Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's telling you how you should identify, Flyer22. That's for you and you alone to do. It's probably pertinent to note though that often celebrities and other people of note have little control over how they're portrayed in the media and what labels are used to describe them. That's why we have organisations like GLAAD and press for change. Many news organisations, reliable sources and all, continue to refer to trans people by their birth assigned gender, for example. Chelsea Manning is a great example here. Many sources continue to use incorrect pronouns and her previous name. wp:mos:identity has good guidance here: "An exception to the previous point is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." also "use specific terminology", which directly relates to the argument at hand, that it is disrespectful to ignore the fact that many transsexual people prefer not to identify as transgender. Chocolate vittles (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Media sources these days have generally been respectful when it comes to a transgender person's gender identity. A lot of media sources were respectful with regard to Chelsea Manning's gender identity, and pointed out Wikipedians who were misgendering her and/or ones that were blatantly transphobic. A quick Google search shows this. Likewise, media sources have generally been respectful with regard to Caitlyn Jenner's identity. And, of course, Wikipedia does its part with the MOS:Identity guideline. When I cite celebrities' transgender identities, I am basing that on what they have stated in reputable sources. And the MOS:Identity guideline does not apply to the transgender and transsexual disputes you have been having with me and others. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring any rules, flyer22. I'm editing in good faith. The instant I joined Wikipedia you were very quick to put me in my place and apply the wp:advocacy tag to me. You're acting like quite a wp:bully. Chocolate vittles (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You've repeatedly violated and ignored the rules; and by that, I mean your unwillingness to adhere to WP:Lead, WP:Due weight and WP:Synthesis; all of this is shown in the #Adding a WP:HAT to Transgender and vice versa discussion above, and partly in this discussion. If you hadn't been engaging in WP:Advocacy, there would have been no need for me cite it to you. If wanting to make sure that you are not violating WP:Policies and guidelines is me being a bully, then so be it. We will see how many agree with you if I take your editing to Wikipedia forums that are intended to criticize it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate vittles, can you please provide instances of alleged bullying, per common courtesy and to let others know of what comments you are referring to exactly? Myself, I personally feel that you may be a good-faith advocate but you are trying too hard to push your views in without appropriate references, though everyone is certainly allowed an opinion on a talk page so long as it does not cross over into Wikipedia:NOTFORUM and Wikipedia:Civility, or into the article causing Wikipedia:EDITWARS. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to point to this talk page, and to the edit history for the article. Every time I open my mouth you go nuts quoting the rules you allege I've broken. I'm starting to wonder whether you're an individual or a whole team of people. Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Some specific examples rather than broad statements would be appreciated when accusing a user of WP:Bullying, as well as when raising suspicion of WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEATPUPPET. I have not gone "nuts", I have simply pointed out instances that make other editors suspicious, mainly to ask for clarification and to explain to you why others are treating you the way they are.Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the WP:ADVOCATE tag, you have made several comments that raise the suspicion of other editors when discussing topics that contain real-world advocates.

• In this comment, you start saying that linking the articles in a synonymous or "see also" manner is POV-pushing, despite sources and article content supporting such a possible addition.^{Myself, I am dropping the stick since it has being addressed via the lead, though I will try to help further in that effort.}
• In this comment, "[you] object" to 'assertions' that transsexual falls under the transgender "umbrella" stating

  Many people see transgender and transsexual as different things, not one as a subset of the other. [A] significant number of transsexual people live cisgender lives after transition, and don't appreciate bing [sic] lumped in with gender diverse people.

  If a 'significant number' don't see it that way, then there should be articles, or sources that state this in a reliable manner, as per WP:WEIGHT where it states, from Jimbo Wales:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

I am not 100% sure if you have yet addressed this issue but if not then I would ask for you to please find, and show quotes supporting, the view that a "significant number" of transsexuals do not appreciate "being lumped in with gender diverse people," per WP:BURDEN. I do believe that there is some controversy but that it is similar to the "homosexual vs. gay" label and is based more on individual and personal opinions of people forming a significant majority affecting popular language rather than medical jargon but I am not widely read on this issue and I am not debating the points either side makes, merely the manner of delivery. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have, and I did. See refs 4 through 7 in the article. Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies then, I haven't been watching the Transsexual article for a little while now due to the dummy edit conversation and constant rehash edits, so I must have missed them being put in. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not quite; I don't see any sources provided by Chocolate vittles that support the assertion that "a significant number of transsexuals do not appreciate being lumped in with gender diverse people." Reference 7 (what is currently reference 7), which is gendercentre.org.au, doesn't even state that. It's speaking of gender-variant people in general who might not identify with the term transgender. And why should we consider gendercentre.org.au a WP:Reliable source? And as pointed out in the #Adding a WP:HAT to Transgender and vice versa discussion above, Chocolate vittles has misrepresented sources. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• In this comment, you state:

Many transsexual people see the continual attempts of inclusion of transsexuality within an overarching transgender term as appropriation of transsexuality by crossdressers and gender queer people. This is the reason this stuff doesn't belong in the lede. Promoting transgender to the lede of the article adds considerable weight to one side of the argument or the other. We're not going to get consensus. This is an argument that's been ongoing since the 1990s. FWIW, many transsexual people find the word transgender pejorative, as it reduces their legitimate identities to a desire to wear women's clothes.

See above dot-point and discussion. "[N]ot going to get consensus" is irrelevant. Wikipedia states what the sources say, per WP:No Original Research. Consensus merely decides how Wikipedia states the information via WP:Policies and WP:Guidelines.

• In this comment, you state:

It's not ok for non-transsexual people to tell transsexual people how to identify.

See WP:No Original Research where it states

Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

• This comment seems rather similar to WP:ADVOCACY's "What I am writing is true" defence for advocacy with the statement:

  I'll posit that practically _all_ transsexual people who identify as transsexual prefer transsexual to transgender, and practically _all_ transgender people who identify as transgender prefer transgender to transsexual, because otherwise they'd identify otherwise, wouldn't they?

• This comment pretty much mirrors the WP:ADVOCACY's defence reason "I only want to help Wikipedia". You have had several editors raise Penalty flags about your edits. This should have started some alarm bells that you may need to change your style or method of argument. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I object to Flyer22's label of wp:advocacy. I was calling this out as being an example of her WP:bullying. Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

^{Fixed the WP:Advocacy link for you, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)}

For myself, I think you have acted in good-faith but you have been over-zealous and ignored several policies and guidelines when it has suited the situation. If you can show that you can debate in a reasonable manner, such as this talk-page thread where editors with differing opinions but an interest in improving the article actually work together with each other (applying to all the editors involved in this article and talk-page, not just Chocolate vittles). Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What penalty flags? I've received zero notification of any penalty flags. In the instances where I have had difficulties with other editors, (I'm thinking the Sheila Jeffreys article), it's been resolved amicably through the wikipedia arbitration process. Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Penalty flags" in this context meaning editors making comments of policy breaches, not Incidents. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I see now. There _are_ no penalty flags in wikipedia. You're making things up in an attempt to intimidate. Much clearer now. Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not attempting to intimidate, I was using a football reference about tagging areas when people seem to have done something wrong, though I can see that it may have been slightly inappropriate. Perhaps "yellow card" would be better? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC) I stand by the penalty flag reference, as it does not actually involve any official punishments and is used solely in-game. Yellow cards are more serious and can involve sanctions/blocks or out-of-game punishments. It is a sporting reference and so you may not have realised the finer delicacy and I will apologise for not being clearer and clarifying. The flags simply denote spots on a field where a player has breached a minor rule of play which is what is being talked about. It was/is a metaphor but there is obvious contention about the behaviour. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologise if I have seemed to be raising dead horses through inadvertent flogging, and I hope everyone can have a good day and calmly discuss the problem with sources and quotes while assuming good faith. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well said, Dr Crazy 102. Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I really object that you're taking comments I've made in the _talk_ article and demanding sources for those. Do you have sources for everything you've said in a talk article? I thought not. This is exactly the sort of bullying that I'm talking about.

I just had a look at your talk page. You certainly get in a lot of fights on Wikipedia, don't you? Perhaps you should take a bit of a breather before getting stuck into the keyboard. Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit. I just realised this stuff was from DrCrazy, not Flyer22. Apologies for thinking it was from you, Flyer22. Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. I'd rather us work things out than fight. I get into a lot of disputes on Wikipedia because I edit a lot of topics on Wikipedia that are contentious. If you want to know how others feel about my editing, feel free to ask on my talk page; one of my WP:Watchers might answer you. And/or you can look at the WP:Barnstar section on my user page, where I've included responses; there are more barnstars that I haven't yet added.

Because you cut into Dr Crazy 102's comment with this post, which I was hoping wouldn't happen (so that the WP:Talk reading would be easier), I signed parts of Dr Crazy 102's comment above. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And the current state of my talk page is not what I would call full of fights anyway. It has editors coming to me for assistance, thanking me for something, notifying me of something, and WP:Disruptive editors. As a WP:Patroller, I deal with WP:Disruptive editors quite often. Flyer22 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22 for signing to avoid confusion.

Chocolate vittles, why did you cut through my comment? I have responded yes, but only to avoid bad courtesy of moving posts. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Drcrazy102. I think that Chocolate vittles cut into your comment because it is long and Chocolate vittles wanted to be clear about which parts Chocolate vittles was responding to. It's common for editors to do that, but it annoys me, especially if they don't copy and paste the other editor's signature/time stamp in certain places of the post to reduce confusion. Also, when it comes to indenting, see WP:Indenting; that's why I reverted your indenting with this edit (followup edit here). While editors usually don't fully follow the WP:Indenting essay when it comes to being clear as to which editor they are replying to, I changed my indenting style to be more in line with that essay sometime in 2014. And, remember, WP:Pinging me to this talk page is not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a weight issue. The section is explaining the difference between transsexual and transgender. Very broad use of transgender to cover transvestite is not as common as narrower use that does not cover transvestite. Giving a lot of emphasis to the broad view in this article is undue and veering off-topic, particularly inasmuch as no matter whether or not particular references define 'transgender' broadly enough to include transvestites, they do include transsexual people, which is what's at issue here. IMO the wording could be shortened to:

• By the 1990s, transgender had come to be considered an umbrella term of which transsexual was a subset. [<br> The term transsexual continues to be used...]

or:

• By the 1990s, transsexual had come to be considered a subset of the umbrella term transgender. [<br> The term transsexual continues to be used...]

(The article transgender also has issues, chief among them that it doesn't have a single section which does a good job of explaining transgender vis-a-vis transvestite; instead, it does a partial and mediocre job in several places that are separated by discussions of other things. That's a problem this article also had until I re-organized it, and I'll try to re-organize transgender sometime, too. But now this comment is straying off-topic...) -sche (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Which specific wording are you referring to replacing? If it's the whole of:

• By the 1990s, transgender had come to be considered an umbrella term for all men and women whose gender identity does not match their birth sex (sometimes including non-binary people, although these are often distinguished as genderqueer), with transsexual as a subset of it.[1][2][3] Significant disagreement exists about the various terms used to identify people on the trans spectrum, with, for example, some sources stating that transsexual and transgender are commonly considered distinct from transvestite,[35] and others referring to transgender as an expansive umbrella term including "transsexuals, transgenderists, cross dressers" and anyone transitioning.[36][37][38]

then the change sounds very good. If it's replacing a subset of that, perhaps not so good. People can make their own mind up as to what transgender does and doesn't mean from the transgender article. Chocolate vittles (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my thought was to replace the entire section. -sche (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Replace the whole section with what? I'm fine with how the section currently is, and it addresses stuff that should be addressed in this article. That stated, I'd be fine with -sche significantly shortening that first paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the verbiage about what transgender means to [[[transgender]]]. It's still suboptimal that both this article and that one have multi-paragraph sections on the relationship of transsexual to transgender. They cover the same topic, but because they aren't synced, they're liable to fall out of sync and become inconsistent. My suggestion is to consolidate the content of both articles' sections in one article, and then transclude it into the other article, in the manner outlined at Wikipedia:Transclusion#Pages_with_a_common_section. -sche (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For some articles, it is important that a topic is significantly addressed in both articles. In this case, that topic is the relationship between the words transgender and transsexual and aspects that concern them. WP:Content forking addresses articles that share significant content with each other and how that is acceptable. I would be fine with transcluding in this case if I saw that the sections about this needed to be identical; I don't see that they need to be identical. The Transsexual section about the matter is different than the Transgender article about it for valid/obvious reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Propose moving or removing Thailand section

This section looks tacked on. I think unless we create a section for regional/cultural views of transsexual people, this should be either removed or moved somewhere else, but I'm at a loss to think where. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, as someone has obviously put a fair bit of work into it. Chocolate vittles (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd hate to pitch it entirely (though it could stand to be condensed). Perhaps move it to LGBT rights in Thailand and put a link to that page in this page's "See also" (if there's nowhere more appropriate to put the link)? I agree that it's weird to have only the one country. -sche (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery in the lead

Moved this post here to its own section so that it is not obscured in an old thread; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout about new topics. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that the fact that many transsexuals do not seek SRS needs to be addressed. In fact, most transsexuals never undergo SRS. Clearly, many more would have it if they could afford it, but a large percentage would not want it even if it were free, especially among the FTM population for which the results are poor. I think it's safe to say however that most transsexuals seek HRT and visible (EG "top") surgery because being transsexual is more about social role than about plumbing. Of course the general public naturally and incorrectly assumes that being transsexual is all about bottom surgery. It's certainly what most of they think of when they think about transsexuals, but their perception doesn't match the lived experience of the people themselves. My attempt to begin to address this problem was to remove the mention of SRS from the lead, feeling that leaving it there only reinforces the common misconception. Flyer22 reverted that change, eventually replacing it with the term "sex reassignment therapy" which is better but which is relatively unknown and easily confused with "sex reassignment surgery" (8,000 hits compared with 400,000). I then tried removing any mention of medical specifics in the lead but they reverted that as well. I propose that if any mention of medical specifics are felt to be called for in the lead, that HRT be the first treatment listed since it is the specific treatment most universally sought and a term that is well understood. Cutelyaware (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cutelyaware (talk · contribs), that many transsexuals do not seek SRS is already addressed in the article; see this section. As for the rest, I told Cutelyaware the following on my talk page: When you made this edit, I was clear about why "sex reassignment surgery" should be noted in the lead; I told you "per WP:Lead; this is a significant aspect of this topic that is addressed lower. The words 'cosmetic surgery' are vague." I then compromised by removing "sex reassignment surgery" and replacing it with "sex reassignment therapy," which covers "hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to modify secondary sex characteristics, sex reassignment surgery to alter primary sex characteristics, and other procedures altering appearance, including permanent hair removal for trans women." And yet you removed that as well, and I reverted you. We should not be vague to our readers about what medical assistance means regarding a transsexual person aligning their body with their identified sex or gender. We are not vague about it lower in the article, and we certainly should not be vague about it in the lead, which is often the only part of an article that a reader reads. The lead is meant to summarize the article (its most significant aspects).

So now other opinions are needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As a transsexual male who has opted for hormone therapy but not surgery myself, I understand Cutelyaware's points, but I also understand Flyer22's position. How about changing the parenthetical after "medical assistance" to read "which can include hormone replacement therapy and/or sex reassignment surgery." Or would that make the lead too long? Funcrunch (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful input, Funcrunch. Length is not a big issue since Flyer22 feels it's important to address the issue in the lead and is calling for greater specificity. I'm going to use your suggestion but slightly more succinctly and referring to SRT rather than SRS as Flyer22 prefers like this: "including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapy". Cutelyaware (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Funcrunch's suggestion is pretty much what was there when I made this edit. I avoid "and/or" in Wikipedia articles these days, though, per the WP:ANDOR guideline. But, as noted on my talk page, although the lead of the Transsexual article still needs expansion and ideally should mention sex reassignment surgery, including the fact that many transsexual people do not get the surgery, I am fine with Cutelyaware's latest edit on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've taken out HRT since it is mentioned almost straight away on the SRT article page. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Flyer22's question, my own take on the matter has been influenced by the Virginia Prince version of transgender, in that transsexuals are people who transition with medical assistance (HRT and various surgeries) and transgender people are people who transition but eschew surgery. This is bound up in the fact that up until recently, one had to be diagnosed as transsexual in order to gain access to hormones and srs. I understand that the definition of transgender has and is changing, in that there are many people who see transgender encompassing transsexual (though not all), and there are many people who see transgender encompassing crossdressing as well (but again not all). However I wasn't aware there was a move to redefine transsexual to mean no medical intervention.

Could Cutelyaware perhaps be confusing non-op as meaning no medical intervention? My experience is non-op simply means no bottom surgery, not ne medical stuff at all.

Certainly transsexual is a relatively new term that was created coincident with the pathologisation of gender identity by Benjamin etc, so it's heavily bound up with medicine. Chocolate vittles (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Although you are correct that HRT is included in SRT, SRT is a relatively unknown term. In fact you put it quite well yourself above when you said "HRT and various surgeries". A wording like that doesn't require people to go read the SRT page to figure it out. Anyway, I've reverted your change as it had been previously resolved above. Cutelyaware (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cutelyaware:, I assume you are referring to my edit to remove HRT and simply have SRT? The indent level and the lack of identification has made that harder than was needed to figure out, so it would be appreciated if in future you use a WP:Permalink to refer to a specific edit or specifically state which user's edit. If you weren't talking about my wording then, again, please specify which edit you are referring to. Thanks. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, you seem to have me and Cv confused, since you are referencing Cv's comment in regards to my edit. Please check the user signatures or clarify your indenting and comment. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, I respectfully disagree with removing SRS, since it is discussed in the article content and especially since I do not understand the reasoning behind why you insist on having HRT as well as SRT when HRT is a form of therapy already covered by SRT but not SRS when that too is a form of SRT? If you insist on having one specific term followed by a catch-all term, why not have two specifics and a catch-all term? Either choose to have the catch-all, or choose to list the specific types of SRTs available.

I am still confused as to why SRS is being removed despite being discussed in the article content and despite MOS:LEAD, and would very much like to know why exactly SRS should be removed. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the term "non-op", I don't know how you think I might be misunderstanding it because I've not mentioned the term at all. My understanding of the term is the same as yours, FWIW. The term "transsexual" is not new at all and is quite well understood. Wiktionary says it was coined in 1923 and defines it as "One who has changed or is in the process of changing their physical sex (because it did not match their desired sex) by undergoing medical treatment such as hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and/or sex reassignment surgery (SRS)". The term "transgender" is generally considered an umbrella term similar to "genderqueer". Obviously there is a lot of variation in the meanings and usages of these terms which is what dictionaries are for. Cutelyaware (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate vittles: The idea that non-op means specifically "no bottom surgery" rather than "no surgery" seems to refer to trans women. A much smaller percentage of trans men opt for bottom surgery at this time, but many do opt for top surgery, for reasons previously discussed here. I prefer not to describe trans people with the terms non-op or pre-op, but won't go further into that per WP:NOTFORUM. Funcrunch (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is. I have never mentioned the term here and our definitions are already the same. My point is that "op" status doesn't belong in the lead. What transsexuals do with their genitals is no more important to their definition than what gays do with theirs is to the definition of homosexuality. Cutelyaware (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cutelyaware, I was replying to Chocolate vittles, not to you. That's why I indented at a higher level (which you changed and I've reverted) and said "Chocolate vittles:" at the beginning of my reply. I was referring to their sentence above stating "My experience is non-op simply means no bottom surgery, not ne medical stuff at all." From my reading and experience, a trans man referring to himself as "non-op" would more likely be saying that he is not seeking any surgery, not that he is not seeking bottom surgery specifically. Funcrunch (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes though you were talking "about" me and pondering my possible confusion as if I wasn't in the room which I find insulting. Cutelyaware (talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cutelyaware:, I fail to see how Funcrunch was talking about you when responding only to the ideas Chocolate vittles presented about what op-status means. If the replies are somehow insulting when not discussing anything related to you, despite Cv's original comment discussing your confusion, that is showing that you take insult about anything that opposes you. I don't think Cv should have said you were confused in any regard, but the following comments say nothing about you being confused. Don't take insult where none is present. Sincerely, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed one way or the other regarding HRT/SRS/SRT. Just as long as it's acknowledged that transsexual people usually pursue _some_ form of medical assistance. I got confused thinking cutelyaware was trying to remove all reference to medical stuff from the lead, where this clearly isn't the case. Chocolate vittles (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Transsexual people and science

See Talk:Transgender#Transsexual people and science to discuss whether the above-named section of "transgender" should be moved to this article. -sche (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This subject is anti-science.

Sex cannot be changed. Male and Female are clearly defined in biology. Surgery cannot re-assign them. At most all it can do is neuter as the factor that defines either male of female is surgically removed (and replaced with simulations mimicking the appearance of the opposite sex).

Gender can be changed, as it is just a matter of social roles.

Sex, however, cannot. LeapUK (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Biologically, you're right, but it's really just a misnomer. People confuse sex and gender constantly and tend to use the terms interchangeably. More correct would be the term Gender Reassignment Surgery. And of course bottom surgery is only one part of sex/gender change. Adopting a new social role is not as simple as changing behavior. The cosmetic surgeries are often important both to the individual and to society.Cutelyaware (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

LeapUK (talk · contribs), see the Sex and gender distinction article. Some scholars argue that sex is not immutable. And in the case of some species, they are right; see the Sex change article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex is not "clearly defined" in biology. For every facet of so-called "biological sex" - chromosomes, hormone levels, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics such as breast and facial hair development - there are variations and exceptions. Funcrunch (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex is not always clearly defined in biology, and nature isn't nearly as tidy as people would like. Jes' sayin' ... - Alison ^❤ 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Transsexuality is not about "Gender Identity"

Since years people who are born with bodyparts that differ from their sex are made invisible. So transsexual girls are falsely defined as "boys" with a female "gender identity". This is wrong. They are girls with masculinized bodyparts (that's what "transsexual" means). Cause there is knowledge in this field it would be good to rework this wiki-article to get it more neutral. Thanks. --46.237.209.197 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with, or not culturally associated with, their assigned sex, and desire to permanently transition to the gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance (including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapies) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender." This is bullshit. Transsexual people know that their body doesn't fit to their gender or expectations of society based on gender. "Transsexuality" means that a woman for e.g. has masculinized bodyparts. It is not about gender-identification. Please stop the U.S.-based invisible-making of bodyvariations like "Transsexuality". Thank you. --5.56.219.54 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop using different IPs to state the same thing over and over again; you had your say in the #Transsexualism no longer defined as a disorder in DSM-V and #Transsexual. Origin of the word sections. We go by the WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight, not our personal opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sentence on FTM lower surgery options..

"This is especially so in the case of trans men, many of whom are dissatisfied with the current state of phalloplasty, which is typically very expensive, not covered by health insurance, and which does not result in a fully erectile, sexually sensate penis; by contrast, metoidioplasty, which is more popular, is significantly less expensive and has far better sexual results."

There are multiple problems with this sentence. First of all, men who have had phalloplasty have options for erectile function. And, forearm phalloplasty, at least, does actually result in a sexually sensate penis (here is one source). So it is simply wrong to state that the procedure "does not result in a fully erectile, sexually sensate penis".

Secondly, what's with the value judgements on metoidioplasty? Are there any sources on the procedure's "popularity"? Or that it has "far better sexual results"? It's not at all clear that this is the case. For example, here in Ontario there is some fear that the province will stop funding metoidioplasty, because most men who have the procedure later go on to have phalloplasty.

Thirdly, it's not necessarily the case that metoidioplasty is cheaper than phalloplasty. For example, the Belgian team, which is by far the most experienced phalloplasty team in the world, charges fees within the range of what most US surgeons charge for metoidioplasty.

Can we just stick to the facts here? There's enough misinformation and negativity around FTM lower surgery options as it is, these myths shouldn't be perpetuated in Wikipedia.

Coffeeandcode (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 and I had a discussion about this earlier in an above section. I too was uncomfortable with the wording but she added some references... more references would be helpful if you want to add them in support of changing the wording. Funcrunch (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Coffeeandcode (talk · contribs). In addition to what Funcrunch stated to you, I also changed the wording to be more accurate when I added those aforementioned references. You asked, "Can we just stick to the facts here?" I did stick to the facts, with WP:Reliable sources. The paragraph you take issue with is supported by three, relatively recent scholarly sources. And they are compliant with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). WP:MEDRS is the sourcing standard when it comes to sourcing medical content on Wikipedia. The source you cited appears to be a WP:Primary source, which is very much discouraged by WP:MEDRS; for example, the abstract of your source states, "Conclusion: With our techniques, the reconstructed genitalia obtain tactile and erogenous sensitivity. To obtain a good tactile sensitivity in the reconstructed phallus, we believe that the coaptation of the cutaneous nerves of the flap with the ilioinguinalis nerve and with one of the 2 nerves of the clitoris is essential in obtaining this result." That study does not seem solid enough to support your assertion that "And, forearm phalloplasty, at least, does actually result in a sexually sensate penis." Furthermore, the paragraph you take issue with is not stating that there is no sexual sensitivity with regard to phalloplasty; it states "does not result in a fully erectile, sexually sensate penis"; what it is trying to state is that the constructed penis does not act in the same, full capacity as a natural penis. If you have good sources showing that such a penis does act in that way, then list them here. Not WP:Primary sources where doctors are claiming that they have good results with surgeries they performed. And I don't mean metoidioplasty; I mean phalloplasty. And as for the rest of what you stated, it is important to note that metoidioplasty is usually far cheaper than phalloplasty and is usually preferred over phalloplasty, by trans men and medical professionals. Reporting that on Wikipedia is not misinformation in the least, and I see no valid reason to censor that content in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, with this edit, I changed the wording. And with this edit, I moved the content while re-organizing the article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Desire for sex reassignment therapy

Regarding the {{cn}}-tagged line "Some people diagnosed with gender identity disorder have no desire for sex reassignment therapy, nor for genital reassignment surgery, and/or are not appropriate candidates for such treatment." : Excluding books which copy-and-paste from our article, I can't find a source that explicitly makes this claim about adults, nor can I find a source that disclaims it by definitively stating that all adults diagnosed with GID have desire for and are candidates for surgery. I can find conflicting pronouncements about whether or not desire for surgery is a defining criterion for GID:

• Deborah Rudacille's The Riddle of Gender (2009) says: In “Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood, Adolescence or Adulthood,” the expressed desire for surgery now becomes only one of a number of criteria to be taken into consideration when making a diagnosis.
• but Cynthia A. Graham and ‎Kathryn Hall's The Cultural Context of Sexual Pleasure and Problems (2012) says: In U.S. and Western conceptualizations of gender identity disorder, the defining criterion is the desire for surgery.

Some references (e.g. Psychopathology: Foundations for a Contemporary Understanding, edited by James E. Maddux, Barbara A. Winstead) do say that "the majority of children with gender identity disorder do not continue to have this disorder into adolescence or adulthood, [... and] since gender identity disorder tends not to persist into adulthood, some researchers argue that this disorder should not be diagnosed among children (Lev, 2005)" (other references add that whenever GID does persist from childhood to adolescence, it tends to persist into adulthood), but that's a more specific statement about candidacy for GID/treatment than our article makes. -sche (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Transsexual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080520083338/http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk:80/articles/article.aspx?ArticleID=435 to http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleid=435
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323074333/http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/ae/pdf/transbrainresearch.pdf to http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/ae/pdf/transbrainresearch.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Brain-based studies - misleading errors in citation.

Under "Androphilic male-to-female transsexuals" subsection article states "In 2009, the German team of radiologists led by Gizewski compared 12 androphilic transsexuals".
Actual cited study make no mention of "androphilic transsexuals" but of "non-autogynephilic" MTF transsexuals. Non-autogynephilic does not mean androphilic.
It means that said transsexuals don't have transvestive fetishistic disorders causing them to be sexually aroused by dressing up, acting like or thinking of themselves as female. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia

Further, study mentions no such thing as "the sample of androphilic transsexuals was shifted towards the female direction in brain responses".
Study actually says "Our results revealed a nearly identical activation pattern in MTF and female volunteers compared with males of the control group, with increased activation in these areas in men of the control group. This indicates a similar cerebral processing of emotional content and sexual arousal in women and in MTF transsexuals, which is dissimilar to the male group."

Which is technically true. But is actually an alarming example of confirmation bias.
Cited study (full text here) gets its "similar cerebral processing... dissimilar to the male group" from these results:
"Women compared with men revealed an enhanced activation of the right medial and superior temporal cortex (Figure 2B); however, these activations were not significant (uncorrected P < 0.001), and the temporal cortex was not in a predefined ROI."
"MTF revealed a higher activation in the medial temporal and inferior parietal cortex bilateral when compared with male volunteers (Figure 2D), which again was similar to that found in the female to male comparison, with the same restrictions in respect to significance."

In other words, compared to men, MRI for women gave the results of "I don't know" - i.e. some activity in another part of the brain, but not statistically significant.
While, again compared to men, MRI for MTF transsexuals gave the results of "I don't know either" - i.e. some activity in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT parts of the brain, related to both men and women, but again, not statistically significant.

Study shows absence of evidence for similarity of female, MTF transsexual and male response to erotic imagery, and indicates possible evidence for dissimilarity between all three.
Not, that "the sample of androphilic transsexuals was shifted towards the female direction in brain responses".
Nor, "similar cerebral processing of emotional content and sexual arousal in women and in MTF transsexuals, which is dissimilar to the male group.".
A ≠ B, A ≠ C, B ≠ C... that's it - regarding brain areas activated ("cerebral processing"), or not.
Regarding "sexual arousal" - it is again not dissimilar.
"The sexual arousal rated by the subjects differed between the three groups, although the differences were not statistically significant "
A ≈ B, A ≈ C, B ≈ C.

As for the study, authors ARE German. Maybe it's a translation error. Already multiplied to at least 36 other studies that have cited this study according to the jsexmed.org.--89.146.151.237 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transsexual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080921055034/http://www.who.int:80/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/gf60.htm to http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/gF60.htm#F640
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt/transgender.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It denies transexuals

So if the dont want to get the sex change but think they are the opposite sex to what they actually are they are not transexual? even if they live the opposite sex?--Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Compare this article to transgender. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Some findings

I found that new findings was released some days ago related to transsexualism here.Dianakc (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transsexual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913065950/http://www.symposion.com/ijt/benjamin/chap_02.htm to http://www.symposion.com/ijt/benjamin/chap_02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303035205/http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf to http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture 1: Weird fingers

"A trans woman with the letters "XY" written on her palm". Ok. But what's wrong with her fingers? I know some parts of the pic are kind of blurry, but is there a technical explanation for that weird form of her hand?--87.184.128.240 (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

>>I think that's just distortion in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.251.81 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

What sex is a guy on hormons with breast implants?

They seem confused, want to be a woman but still want to keep his penis!--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC) ArnoldHimmler all Transgenders/Transsexuals are confused. Transgenderism aka Gender Identity disorder is a mental illness and was considered as such until recently after a push from Obama to remove it from the list of mental illnesses in the name of "Political Correctness".Spidersmilk (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)