Talk:Transsexual

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

---

Transsexual

The article doesn't really address or explain the fact that some transgender people find the term "transsexual" offensive. Needs a revamp I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.14.115 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Biology

I was hoping to find out something about the biology. Is it always XY chromosomes? What kinds of sexual organs develop? Are they fully matured? Does it happen in other species? This article is full of anything and everything other than what I imagine most people like myself would like to know. 77.8.41.177 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2020

Transsexual → Transsexuality – The first use of transsexual in the article is as an adjective, whereas titles should generally be nouns or noun phrases. A 2015 RM discussion suggested that transsexual is the most common name, but its use as a countable noun ("True transsexuals feel..." à la Harry Benjamin) is on the same level as blacks for African Americans. That is, it's either academic jargon or simply outdated. Transsexuality is used by published, reliable sources such as Britannica, ScienceDirect, Diamond (2013), Meyerowitz (2009), and Schreiber (2016). Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 04:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. There is no more of a valid reason to move this article to "Transsexuality" than there is to move the Transgender article to "Transgenderism." The Terminology section, which focuses on the term transsexual (not transsexuality), is reason enough to leave the article where it's at. And although we do sometimes use transsexuality on Wikipedia to address the topic of transgender identity in general, it is a term that makes people think that the topic is all about, or mainly about, sexuality...when it's about more than that. And there are academic sources that address confusion over the term transsexuality in that regard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The same section says, "The word transsexual is most often used as an adjective rather than a noun". That's the main reason to move the article, because article titles should be nouns or noun phrases. I don't see any significant risk of confusion here; if transsexuality is good enough for the likes of Britannica, it should be good enough for us. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Dictionaries, such as this Dictionary.com source, list transsexual as a noun and as an adjective. They also do so regarding the term transgender. In fact, they tell us that it's usually offensive to use the term transgender as a noun. They state that "Use of transgender as a noun is declining and is usually taken as offensive. And people object to the adjectival variant transgendered because the –ed suffix could imply that something happened to make the person transgender." I wonder why you aren't suggesting that we move the Transgender article. And no need to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As it notes, such arguments can be valid or invalid. And, in this case, you have brought up what is done for other articles, as if we never have any exceptions regarding article titles. I will state that we commonly/usually do not copy what other encyclopedias do. That is what makes Wikipedia different. As for what is confusing or not in this case? I'm only interested in what academic sources state on the matter. We already have the Transgender article, which is about the transgender topic in general. Considering that the term transsexuality is used to refer to the transgender topic in general, renaming this article that confuses what this article is about. We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in this case. I haven't mentioned any other articles for comparison, but in fact I would support a move of Transgender to a less outdated or demeaning term. Right now we're discussing this article. WP:NOUN is policy, which means it represents established consensus. If we want to ignore policy in this case, then we would need a convincing argument for why doing so is an improvement, not just vague hand-waving about "exceptions". Specifically, I'm not aware of any blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. Avoiding doing so just to be "different" frankly seems bizarre. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  You stated that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case. And you stated that presumably because you argue that you "haven't mentioned any other articles for comparison." You brought up WP:NOUN in terms of what we do with other articles. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You need not specifically mention other articles for that to be the case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for what I've argued. No one stated anything about a blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. No one stated anything about avoiding doing so just to be different. The point on other encyclopedias is that we usually do not do things just because they have done it. And my point about renaming this article? I do not see how I can be any clearer. "We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community." No to a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. When it comes to the Transgender and Transsexual articles, a case can be made that if any of the two should be titled "Transsexuality"...then it's the Transgender article. But I wouldn't support changing the title of that article either. If the Transgender article was about the term transgender, then your case for renaming this one would be strong. This one would then be the one about the transgender topic in general. But it's not. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I have no idea where this OTHERSTUFF argument is coming from. I cited WP:NOUN, which is part of article titling policy, as a justification for renaming this article specifically. If we're saying that policy arguments are just OTHERSTUFF, then I guess we can get rid of policies and guidelines altogether. And the notion that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it" nullifies both WP:TERTIARY and much of the logic behind WP:COMMONNAME. We use other encyclopedias (especially academic ones) as a guide all the time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't get it. Understood. For example, using other encyclopedias as sources in our articles is obviously not the same thing as copying what they do. And tertiary sources obviously aren't the strongest sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:TERTIARY: "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight". If you want to argue that Britannica is not a reliable teriary source, fine, but there's nothing in the policy that justifies not using tertiary sources as a model. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't take away from what I argued. Neither does you, as usual, putting words in my mouth. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not what I meant at all. To be clear, one could potentially make a case that Britannica itself is not the strongest source. If that's what you're arguing, fine. If not, then I don't see anything in the policy that specifically discourages using published encyclopedias as a model; quite the contrary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What is "quite the contrary"? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics ... and may be helpful in evaluating due weight". We can use tertiary sources as a basis for constructing articles, and by extension, naming articles. Due weight, as a component of NPOV, applies to article titles as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to quote WP:TERTIARY to me. You don't need to quote any policy or guideline to me. But you already know that. I've stated it to you enough times. You argued "quite the contrary", as if Wikipedia is in the habit of copying what other encyclopedias do. It's not. I asked "What is 'quite the contrary'?" for examples. I know what I'll be getting any I won't be getting any. Again, using encyclopedias in our Wikipedia articles is not the same thing as copying what they do. Our WP:Manual of Style, as discussed on that guideline's talk page times before, even makes a point of not doing what other outlets do for a number of things. But, hey, you do you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:TITLE says Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used and it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias... WanderingWanda (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Essentially repeating what Sangdeboeuf stated, and like I don't know everything that WP:TITLE states. Yeaaah, that's helpful. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the part of WP:COMMONNAME that WanderingWanda quoted is an even stronger endorsement of using sources like Britannica than what I said, and directly contradicts the notion that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't contradict my statement that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it" whatsoever. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

[T]he term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used means we often do do things just because other encyclopedias have done them, i.e. look at other encyclopedias to determine what article titles to use. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Being transsexual specifically" is exactly what transsexuality means, not "the transgender topic in general": "transsexual has generally been used to refer to the subset of transgender people who desire to transition permanently to the gender with which they identify ... transsexuality may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex, while transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition" (my bolding). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  If you are going to argue that the term transgender -- a well-accepted umbrella term -- is demeaning and offensive, then you should provide reliable sources, especially reliable academic sources, backing you up on that. Since you want to mention Britannica as support of what we should do here at Wikipedia, I note now that it also has a Transgender article. Well, it's titled "Transgender (gender identity)" when viewed from the outside of the article. But it's still there -- "transgender" right in the title. The difference is that Wikipedia would not disambiguate like that since WP:Primary topic exists and all. You argued, "'Being transsexual specifically' is exactly what transsexuality means, not 'the transgender topic in general'." I don't feel like sitting here and listing sources that clearly show that transsexuality doesn't only refer to those who have undergone hormone replacement therapy and/or surgery. By contrast, transsexual does. The reason that the Causes of transsexuality article has "transsexuality" in the title is because there was an objection to the term "transsexualism." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am not arguing that transgender is offensive; your own Dictionary.com source does that: "noun: 3: Usually Offensive. a person who is transgender". Regarding the need to have undergone hormone therapy/surgery, your own source for the definition of transsexual belies this: "1. a person having a strong desire to assume the physical characteristics and gender role of a different sex" (my bolding). Basic English grammar (i.e. the use of the suffix -ity) means that transsexuality is the state of being transsexual. I won't hold my breath waiting for sources saying transsexuality means something entirely different, because I'm pretty sure they don't exist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who stated that you are considering moving the Transgender article "to a less outdated or demeaning term." And what term would that be? Hmm? You are the one who pointed to Britannica as support of what we should do here at Wikipedia. I pointed it back at you, showing that it also uses the Transgender article title. Regarding not holding your breath when it comes to me providing sources? Many editors know that I don't state anything about the literature on whatever unless it's true. As seen here at Talk:Transvestism, I'm known to provide a collapsed box of sources to support my arguments. But you aren't going to goad me into doing that at this talk page. My previous interactions with you on transgender topics have already made it clear to me that there are a lot of things you aren't aware exist in this field. I mean, not looking beyond dictionary sources when it comes to what transsexuality can refer to? Citing passages from this Wikipedia article? I usually don't have to request sources on this topic. I know what I'm talking about. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're driving at here; I didn't mention the Transgender article until you yourself brought it up. I replied that I would apply the same reasoning to that page as to this one. But I really don't care at this moment what we do with that article. I cited four academic sources plus Britannica on what transsexuality refers to. The dictionary sources are the same ones you and Crossroads used to justify your own arguments. I countered this by showing that they say the opposite of what was being claimed. If the section on Transsexual and its relationship to transgender that I cited is in error, feel free to correct it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that the section you've referred to using the words "generally", "may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex", and "transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition" translates to "transsexuality has only ever referred to physical alterations." But whatever. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not surprising, since I never made that claim. Being transsexual does not always mean physically altering one's body. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Never explicitly made the claim, but have been stating it nonetheless with comments noting that you doubt it means anything other than the physical aspects of one's sex (hormones and surgery) and what you cited regarding what transsexuality refers to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, never said that. Now who's putting words in whose mouth? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The receipts are above. If you felt that the term meant anything else, you would not have argued what you argued, including regarding me providing sources that I can very well provide. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

So we've gone from putting words in others' mouths to simple mind-reading? I feel fairly sure that if I made a remark like "If you felt X, you would not have argued Y", it would be called condescending and uncivil. And rightly so. Very amusing, I must admit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (edited 01:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC))

So we're to play dumb then? Okay. And as for condescending, we both know that I can point to all the times you've condescended to me and I told you to stop (including on your talk page). And putting words in others' mouths is your game. My "07:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)" post is not something that I consider condescending. But you are clearly free to view it how you want to. And, no, I would not point to WP:Civil. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Now we are definitely approaching incivility, not to mention WP:ABF and WP:GRUDGE territory. Regarding sources, the first source I cited, Britannica, says, "Transsexuality [is a] variant of gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex." Nowhere does it state that transsexuality "only ever refer[s] to physical alterations", hormones, or surgery. So I really have no idea what this line of argument is driving at. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your "Now we are definitely approaching incivility, not to mention WP:ABF and WP:GRUDGE territory." commentary is laughable. You are one to talk. Pot Meet Kettle. And since I stated "we're to play dumb then", I guess I'm being uncivil to myself as well. You can keep playing. But, like I noted, the receipts are above for everyone to see. Everyone can see you stating that you "won't hold [your] breath waiting for sources saying transsexuality means something entirely different, because [you're] pretty sure they don't exist." And if you think stating "entirely different" is supposed to be some out for you, it's not. I was very clearly stating that transsexuality does not only refer to the physical, and can refer to being transgender in general (namely social aspects of being trans), while you kept quoting things about the physical and insisting that this is all it's about. The wording "gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex" is what the topic of transgender in general means. Well, except for when cisgender cross-dressers and cisgender drag queens are counted, and when considering what type of non-binary person someone happens to be. Being transgender is usually about a person having a gender identity that does not match their assigned sex (and gender)/that person identifying as the sex (and gender) they feel that they are. And now you want us to believe you were arguing otherwise with regard to your view of what transsexuality can mean? No. One of my points has been that Wikipedia does not need two articles about "gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex." Transsexual is a subset of transgender (as made clear in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles). We present it as being about the physical (primarily anyway). But when one uses the term transsexuality, it's a little looser than just stating "transsexual." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your own words don't mean what you say they mean. "Social aspects of being trans[gender]" is not the same as "being transgender in general". The former is specific, while the latter is, yes, general. Transsexuality refers to the state of being transsexual. Basic English grammar, again. Nowhere have I insisted it's "all about" physical aspects/alterations. You appear to be imagining things. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL. You state stuff like "You appear to be imagining things" and then have the nerve to talk about civility? Get real. Sometimes I really want to know if you make these silly arguments on purpose to keep things going. Transgender refers to the physical, psychological, and the social. So can transsexuality. That is the topic of transgender in general, not just one out of three. What is so hard to grasp about that? You cannot make people think that you were arguing something else when making comments like you "won't hold [your] breath waiting for sources saying transsexuality means something entirely different, because [you're] pretty sure they don't exist" and quoting things about the physical. You are the one who quoted the following from the Wikipedia article: "transsexual has generally been used to refer to the subset of transgender people who desire to transition permanently to the gender with which they identify ... transsexuality may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex, while transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition." And you made sure to bold the physical as distinguished from the psychological/social...and then stated "my bolding."

Looking again. Yep, right there in your "03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)" post. You were sure focused on physical sex. Guess I imagined that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I never denied transsexuality refers to "the physical, psychological, and the social". I even provided a source that says as much. The statement "transsexuality may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex" does not mean that social & psychological aspects are excluded. More does not mean all or only. You are accusing me of saying things I did not say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what more you have to state on this topic, especially after this stunt, as if I needed that posted to my talk page. My "discussion" with you on this matter is over. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. But I feel the need to point out that when one uses the term transsexuality, it's a little looser than just stating 'transsexual' is nonsensical. The former is a noun created by adding the suffix -ity to the latter. It therefore means the state or condition of being transsexual. See #Isms, -itys, -ics, and null forms below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Less outdated or demeaning term? And what would that be? If the point is that is what is being done here, I see no evidence that "transsexuality" is better than "transsexual". Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I would prefer to stay on the topic of this article, but the definition of transgender that has already been given should indicate that it's inappropriate to use in noun form. See also "GLAAD Media Reference Guide – Transgender": "Transgender should be used as an adjective, not as a noun". Transgender identity (Books • Scholar) might be a good option. Using the adjective form for either article title is confusing in that it goes against our standard practice of using nouns or noun phrases. The fact that transsexuality is unambiguously a noun (as in Causes of transsexuality) should be all the evidence we need that it's a better title for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Flyer22 Frozen covered it well. The proposer's comparison to the term "blacks" has nothing to do with this situation, and the claim of "outdated" has to do with how "transgender" is the common umbrella term nowadays; in no way is "transsexuality" to be preferred on that basis. WP:JARGON weighs against "transsexuality", as readers will tend far more to think it has to do with sexuality. "Transsexual" is a noun; see Lexico and the Oxford Learners' Dictionary. There are plenty of sources that use "transsexual" too. [1] Crossroads ^-talk- 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  The top results of that Google Scholar search all use transsexual as an adjective, not a noun. According to both your dictionary sources, transsexual as a noun refers to a person, not a generalized medical phenomenon; on that basis the lead sentence should read, "Transsexuals are people who experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex", which seems both outdated and unduly personalized. The article is about the broader phenomenon of transsexuality or state of being transsexual, not transsexuals as a group of people. The BBC News Style Guide cautions against such usage, even comparing it to the term blacks: "Use ['transsexual'] as an adjective - do not say 'transsexuals', in the same way we would not talk about 'gays' or 'blacks'" [2]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Crossroads, are you aware of any recent RS that still use "transsexual" as a noun, for reasons other than scoring political points? Because I am not aware of any. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above arguments.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments. --John B123 (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Wow. The very first sentence of the very first summary of the very first Google Scholar result for *transsexual* says: "Invisible Lives is the first scholarly study of transgendered people—cross-dressers, drag queens and transsexuals." Carlstak (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with the proposal to move Transsexual (adjective, outdated noun) to Transsexuality (noun)? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. AFAICT pretty much all recent RS use transsexual as an adjective, and referring to a person as a transsexual or to people as transsexuals is outdated and generally considered offensive. (That's sort of beside the point, though, because the current article lede establishes the term as an adjective, so it doesn't seem like anyone would interpret the title as a noun). However, per NOUN it seems like we should move to the common-use noun form, which would be transsexuality. If people are confused about the term's inclusion of "sexuality" they can read the article. SreySros (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly, thank you. I haven't found any evidence that readers are confusing Causes of transsexuality or Scientific studies of transsexuality with topics relating only to sexual (i.e. erotic) behavior. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOUN. I haven't seen any policy-compliant rationale for the current placement of the article, whereas the proposed move target is clearly compliant. If the article were being created today, I'm sure we would use a noun. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per Sangdeboeuf and others argument regards WP:NOUN. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and as Newimpartial has noted above re WP:NOUN. This should not be a controversial move. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Isms, -itys, -ics, and null forms

From a corpus linguistics point of view, all three of the terms transsexuality, transsexualism, and transsexual (purely in its role as a noun) have about the same amount of usage in English, whereas the frequency of transsexual used as an adjective dwarfs them all.

From a semantic point of view, transsexuality and transsexualism have similar meanings with some overlap, and some distinction. They diverge where the -ism can lean more to the abstract study of something, whereas the -ity leans more to attributes, or properties. These are not hard and fast rules, but here is a pair of common descriptions of these suffixes:

• -ity – state, condition, quality of being; degree
• -ism – practice of; doctrine of, theory; act, process; state, condition

Speaking strictly about my own sense of the two words, the former is broader in application, and could mean either the property of an individual, in that I could imagine a discussion about "the degree [or onset, or extent, or origin, or fact, or nature) of her transsexuality", but also about the topic outside any specific reference to a person. The -ism form seems more restricted, as although not excluded from this usage, I don't see it used as much about an individual, whereas I can see it used more readily as a general term for the study of the topic. This can be better seen in phrases such as, [studies of] "male-to-female transsexuality", where this implies to me a collective look at numerous cases of male-to-female transsexual individuals, whereas [studies of] "male-to-female transsexualism" might talk more about the general underlying theory. Again, this is just my view.

There are also some orthographic rules involved in what stems can take what prefixes, so that -al can take -ity or -ism (transsexuality and transsexualism; ditto provincial, etc.) whereas words like transvestite take only -ism (of the two; but also, transvestic).

The -ism forms, when attached to phenomena that are culturally fraught, can be problematic, because in some cases they are no longer related to "theory, act, condition", etc; e.g., racism, which begat sexism, ageism, ableism, and so on. This is a more recent connotation of -ism, and was pointed out by Flyer above, who linked to this discussion about objections to transsexualism. I don't feel that same sense of objection as mentioned in that 2016 discussion, but there are definitely a multiplicity of views about this, not to mention it's a fast-moving field. Would be interesting to hear an update from Funcrunch about their feeling about this now. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: My opinion hasn't changed since the referenced page move. Funcrunch (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: My opinion on "-ism" hasn't changed, that is. I don't have the energy to weigh in on the current page move discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, understood; thanks for your feedback. Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I note that transsexuality has increased over time, while transsexualism has decreased at about the same rate (and the noun form of transsexual has gone down as the adjective form has gone up). Case in point: the Britannica entry was originally titled "Transsexualism" (which is still reflected in the URL). The title was evidently changed to "Transsexuality" sometime between June and July 2015, leaving the text largely unchanged. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Good catch on that EB change, that's very interesting indeed. I wonder what other encyclopedias have done about this? Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I've taken the liberty of changing Isms to -isms in the subheading above, just for consistency's sake. Feel free to change it back if this is an error. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not so much an 'error', as a slight diff in emphasis, and also there's the (possible, minor) in-linking issue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

Just a note that in the case of File:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG, the fact that the subject is identified here as "a trans woman" is irrelevant. A Wikipedia image description is not a reliable source. This is a BLP issue, and outing is also a concern.

The image does not adequately illustrate the topic because the article is about the broader phenomenon of being transsexual, not about any one person or group of transsexual people.

in general, articles on large human populations shouldn't be illustrated with images of randomly selected individuals for reasons of due weight. The most recent RfC on this issue generalized the guideline to apply to "any broad grouping of humans", which surely includes transsexual people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The above is not how we do images here. It just isn't. Like stated here, WP:NPF does not apply. WP:NPF is not about images. It's not used for that. We use images of non-notable people all the time. What matters is MOS:PERTINENCE, which does not at all support removing that image. And, yes, it matters that the person is identified as a trans woman on the image description. The person is obviously not being outed. The WP:CONSENSUS I mentioned also matters. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES also does not support removing that image. And just last year, we revisited how far MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES extends: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 10#What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?. It's not about a single image of a single person (although I argued that if we do not use a montage or gallery, then I do not see how a single image is better and that the spirit of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES should extend to a single image showing one person or a group of people in a way that has not been manipulated by editing to put all those people in one image). This is not something I feel the need to debate. So I'll let others do that.

Pinging the editors from the previous discussion: -sche, Mathglot, IdreamofJeanie, Bodney, Meters, and ArglebargleIV. ArglebargleIV hasn't been back on Wikipedia since 2019. I will also contact Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, WP:BLP noticeboard, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images for commentary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I already suggested how PERTINENCE applies here: namely, "the article is about the broader phenomenon of being transsexual, not about any one person or group". How do we know the person is not being outed? The previous discussion on this talk page did not address the issues I mentioned, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override community consensus in any case.

As hinted at above, the earlier MoS discussion features this comment: "The same issues that come with a composite image or similar apply to a single image of one person or a group of people, except worse [...] choosing just a few representatives from a group of people is insufficient for the reasons I copy/pasted above. All of those reasons apply to an even greater degree to attempts to represent groups of people with a single image." So I'm mystified as to why we would keep this image. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I had some of the same concerns as Sangdeboeuf, but this news article about the photo confirms that the person pictured has publicly self-identified as transsexual. Photomontages and galleries that aim to reflect all the diversity of a given group are a bad idea. I am sympathetic to the view summarised in this article about using a photograph of a specific, arbitrarily chosen human couple to illustrate Human, rather than an artist's abstraction. (Something similar was done more recently with Man.) Cheers, gnu57 17:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting. Basically from July 2009 until the BuzzFeed story was published in June 2017, we had no independent RS confirmation of this person's identification as transsexual. If that doesn't highlight a problem with attaching photos of people to broader societal topics arbitrarily, I don't know what does.

I didn't think about the image at the top of Human, although I had definitely seen it before. I wonder what the impact of recent discussions at WT:MOSIMAGES might be for that article, as well as Woman and Man. (I notice that Child does not currently have a lead image.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm still going to leave this to others to debate since I've debated this topic enough, as seen by the above, linked MOS discussions. But I do wonder what you mean by "impact" when it comes to that discussion. As seen with that link, I took the matter there and absolutely no consensus formed with regard to extending MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to single images that aren't a montage/collage/composite. You can have the opinion that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does extend to that, but it's just an opinion and can't be enforced at this point in time. With the African Americans article, I had to rely on what watchers of that article and an RfC stated to keep a single image of a teacher and his students a single image of a man giving a tour to children out the article as the lead image; I couldn't use MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to keep the image out. What I did do was argue that "[t]he same issues that come with a composite image or similar apply to a single image of one person or a group of people, except worse" and that if, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, we do not allow a montage/collage/composite in a case like that, it makes no sense that we would allow a single image to do the job.

Regarding "any broad grouping of humans"? If we went by that, then we wouldn't have images of firefighters in the Firefighter article. Then again, I guess that depends on if one considers firefighters to be a broad grouping of humans. Either way, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES clearly focuses on articles specifically about populations. A clarification was made about this. The closer of the 2016 MOS discussion -- S Marshall -- sought that clarification. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply to things like people with haircuts, hair color, or pictures of people's body parts. For another body part clarification, there was this discussion on the Vulva talk page. S Marshall weighed in there.

As for this? Eh, then why argue that "The most recent RfC on this issue generalized the guideline to apply to 'any broad grouping of humans', which surely includes transsexual people."? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The opinion that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES extends to single images of people is the same opinion that you and others expressed in that discussion. Unless you have now changed your opinion, I don't see the problem.

There was "absolutely no consensus" formed in the previous discussion here on including the photo either.

The RfC close clearly refers to "any broad grouping of humans", so if you want to overturn that, you'll probably need a new RfC.

I think most people will assume that the spirit of the guideline and RfC are about identities – that is, categorizations that reflect innate characteristics more than individual choices. Being a firefighter or having a certain haircut is not an identity in this way.

This article is not about transsexual people as a group, but if it were, NOETHNICGALLERIES would certainly apply. In either case, there are established reasons, based on community consensus, for excluding the photo. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I restored the image.[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There is this discussion that you keep pointing to like some consensus was formed there. The discussion clearly shows people disagreeing and that no consensus was formed. And the closer -- Newslinger -- of this related RfC on a lead image for the African Americans article reiterates what I just stated about there having been no consensus. Newslinger stated, "An editor linked to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?. However, that discussion did not result in consensus for guideline changes, and does not affect this RfC. [...] While MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES advises against using 'a photomontage or gallery of images of group members, there is disagreement on whether an image that does not fall into this classification is appropriate as a lead image for this article. Editors who wish to propose a specific image for the lead image may do so in a separate RfC."

And that separate RfC? Here it is.

So I had to rely on two RfCs to keep the aforementioned image out. For the single image issue, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES only helped when it came to those agreeing with me.

And, yes, unlike that MOS discussion, consensus was indeed formed on the image you removed from this article. You can't go around using MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to remove an image like the one you removed when MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES states "a photomontage or gallery of images of group members" and nothing about a single image of a person and when the discussion I started about that did not result in any amendment to the guideline on that. That's the problem. You make it seem like I have an issue with the image being removed, when I was clear that I don't. The issue I have is with the rationales you have used to remove the image, especially WP:NPF and MOS:PERTINENCE. Your argument that "This article is not about transsexual people as a group" makes no more sense than saying that the Transgender article is not about transgender people as a group. And if not about a group, it's even odder that you are invoking MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I don't need to seek to overturn anything about "any broad grouping of humans." It's you who does not understand. If you want to keep debating this, feel free to debate Kolya Butternut below or take it to the MOS:IMAGES talk page (like I did last year). I see absolutely nothing else to state to you on this topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Meta-commentary regarding talk page layout

Note: My "feel free" comment was made before this edit that moved a comment. That is what "below" referred to. Before that move, my text was placed above that comment. And as long as the WP:Indentation is correct, the position of the comment is correct. In other words, either placement of that comment is correct. Except for noting that we should start new topics at the bottom of the page, there is nothing at WP:TALK suggesting that comments should or must be in chronological order. It is common for editors to place their comment ahead of others' if it makes sense to do so/is clear. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Per WP:TALK#Layout, the point of putting new topics at the bottom of the page is to [make] it easy to see the chronological order of posts. IMO it's just common sense to apply the same rule to individual comments like this one. Interspersing a lengthy comment between two earlier ones seems to go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the guideline. In 6 years of participating in discussions on Wikipedia, I haven't seen non-chronological ordering of comments as a common practice. Would appreciate some examples if this is true. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Should we take this to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? Then again, pinging MOS editor SMcCandlish, who has placed his comment ahead of others' times before, to weigh in on this is simpler. He might not want to comment, given how trivial this is. So you can look at WP:ANI and the WP:ANI archives for plenty of examples. Early on, one is seen in this section, where a "14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post and a "15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post, each by different editors, are placed ahead of a "14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post by a different editor. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be that the editors replying behind the "14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post would be less clear and might confuse? I think so. Or is this instance of jumping ahead supposed to be excused because of the bullet-point setup for the comments? I'm sure that there are also examples of non-chronological replies in the archives of this talk page. That you supposedly "haven't seen non-chronological ordering of comments as a common practice" until now is quite odd. It's not like I stated that it's the go-to thing that is done. Chronological order is still the standard, seeing as placing one's comment ahead of another's is usually not needed. But when a person wants to make it very clear who they are replying to, it happens and often without any issue. And it especially happens because so many editors (including experienced ones) do not follow everything that is seen at WP:Indentation. When someone uses poor indentation, another may need to format their post in a way they usually would not. Perhaps you wanted to make your case on this matter after this, this, this and this. But your movement of my comment in that case did not make the thread easier to read. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Fixed post, and then further tweak. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC) If the goal is to make it very clear who [one is] replying to, then it's rather self-defeating to make it less clear who someone else is replying to, as this comment did. Presumably this is why Kolya Butternut felt the need to move their comment back to its original location. Adjusting for someone else's poor indentation as with the 14:36, 21 November 2020 example is beside the point; Kolya Butternut's 18:16, 27 November reply to me was indented perfectly normally. Generally, a new comment with a lower level of indentation creates a new sub-thread, whether intended or not. The 14:58, 21 November 2020‎ and 15:03, 21 November 2020 comments in your example were later replies to an existing sub-thread. That's why they are above the earlier comment. The point is not that all comments should be ordered chronologically, but that replies to a given comment (as indicated by indentation level) should be ordered chronologically, to preserve the flow of the discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) I disagree with your analysis. Obviously. What do you intend to get out if this latest "discussion" the two of us are having? If we took this to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, your arguments would stand no chance, just like your MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES argument stands no chance with the way that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is currently written. Your odd interpretations of our policies and guidelines are tiring. There was no need to ping Kolya Butternut. And Kolya Butternut posted a comment ahead of one of my comments elsewhere, and I put that comment back in its "correct" spot. Just like here on this talk page, Kolya Butternut wanted there comment where they placed it, I wanted mine where I placed it elsewhere. And it's in chronological order there. Whether or not it's clearer in chronological order is obviously subject to disagreement. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The concerns raised here are something that should be put into some kind of RfC at WT:MOSIMAGES. Single images are not galleries, and gender identities are not ethnicities (or anything similar, as address in a later RfC). So, that's maybe two separate clarification RfCs, if it comes to it. While (per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:WIKILAWYER, etc.) we do tend to apply WP:P&G matters in a broadly-enough construed manner to match the actual community intent of their enactment (even if they have phrasing glitches), this is going far beyond that, in two tangential directions. If galleries of images, in general, were a terrible idea, MoS would say so. But it is also possible that the concerns that lead to NOETHNICGALLERIES might also lead to similar conclusions about certain other topics. It doesn't seem credible to me, though, that MoS or any policy would ban images of TG/NB/GQ people, identified as such, outside their own bios.

If there's a potential BLP issue with a particular image (e.g. we don't have proof of the subject's self-identification), then use a different image. That's a this-case problem not an across-all-cases issue. And per WP:ABOUTSELF, a self-published source is in fact a reliable source for that self's own declared gender ID (though I do not know the exact background details of the particular image people are venting back and forth about).

I have no opinion on the aesthetic merits of that picture. It seems dubious that images of random, non-notable TG/NB/GQ people are of encyclopedic use in articles on gender issues as broad topics (e.g., a Wikimedian's own self-portrait and self-ID on Commons as trans is probably permissible, but it may not be very useful in a Wikipedia article like this one). However, images of very prominent people who self-identify by such a categorizing term are probably good illustration fodder, judging by what we do at other topics (that aren't hitting various editors' raw nerve ends). How/where to include them is an open question, and need not be a one-size-fits-all rule.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish on almost all points here, particularly that NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply to a single picture. Even taking into account that it explicitly scopes itself to not just ethnic groups but also "similarly large human populations", a single image is still not a gallery. If there were problems with this specific image, e.g. doubts about whether the person was trans, that could be grounds for replacing it, but it appears from the discussion above that there is external reliable sourcing that the person pictured is trans, so AFAICT the image is fine. I don't feel strongly about whether the image should be the lead image or be moved lower down with e.g. a trans flag or symbol (or something else) as the lead image, but I will note that this particular image achieved some minor degree of notability; its presence in our article inspired Chelsea Manning's twitter handle and thence the film XY Chelsea, a thing covered by some RS. -sche (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Events and orgs section

The #Events and organizations section is problematic, and needs attention; possibly it just needs to be removed. It was created in 2013 by Sewaneegender (talk · contribs) who had a lot of problems with sourcing throughout their tenure here, and eventually faded. The section reads like a laundry list of organizations, randomly chosen (or perhaps not randomly?) with no connecting narrative, or how they came about or how this section relates to the larger topic. They are almost all USA-based. Also, orgs and events belong more properly in one of the transgender articles, and if mentioned here at all should only contain a brief summary. Most of the citations are simply the website home page of the org in question, so of questionable reliability; if kept, they would need independent sourcing. Personally, I would delete this section, unless one could find some orgs or events that were specifically related to transsexualism; I think I've seen some support groups that are active with respect to proper treatment from medical authorities, things like gateway issues, attitudes towards pre-op vs non-op, and so on; something like that might be appropriate here. Everything else really doesn't belong, imho, and could possibly be moved to List of transgender-rights organizations. If someone blanks the section, you won't hear any objection from me. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)