Talk:Transgender

"Transition timeline" image for article

I think that perhaps a good image for the lead would be a "transition timeline" - pictures of someone before and after they transitioned. Trans people don't look inherently different from cis people, so a more apt comparison is before/after for the same person. Thoughts? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be problematic; seems like "deadimaging" (as in, "deadnaming"?) or prurient interest. I have to think about it some more wrt guidelines and policy, but my instinct tells me this is a bad idea. Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot I'd only consider adding one that was solicited from someone explicitly willing to provide such a picture - not making a collage of pictures that we have of someone before/after. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Elli, in my opinion, it has to go a bit farther than just someone who's willing. There's a subset of trans (in the broadest possible definition of the term) who are transvestic or sissy fetishists—which is absolutely fine, whatever floats their boat—but among that minority there's a sliver (maybe a big sliver) that are exhibitionistic and want to plaster their image on every article where they can get away with having it accepted. From a content-policy PoV, this is fine, and if someone else (you, me, 3rd party) found their image and placed it, then there'd be absolutely no problem. But if it's coming from the individual themself, it becomes a version of WP:PROMO, and then it's not okay. It's a bit of a fine line, but we need to be aware of that possibility. If you, on your own, have found an image of someone, and you have their permission, and it doesn't seem like they're pushing it on you, then imho it's okay. Does this make sense? I wonder what -sche thinks about this, or Crossroads. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot yeah, I understand your point. This would come from me seeking out someone - and ideally someone non-notable - and not the other way around. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

While I must say I don't like the concept, do you have a suggested set of images? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; With no {{ec}}, not sure how CaptainEek came in after, with an earlier timestamp. Maybe some Wikimedia software weirdness. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek not currently. I wanted to get other editors' thoughts before proceeding. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what editors more experienced than I working in the area of human sexuality have to say about this. I imagine there's a similar line to walk when choosing the photos to put at Human sexual activity, for example. There's potential privacy concerns with just choosing an existing image (regardless of copyright, I don't know many trans people who would want a transition timeline of them as the top Google result for "transgender"). At the same time, if someone is actively seeking to be pictured on this page, that feels like self-promotion, which is also a concern. If an editor finds someone who's willing, or finds an image and then contacts the subject for permission, I feel like that would strike the balance in a good way.

I definitely think that an image like this could be helpful for the article. It's a pretty intuitive, clear way to communicate the gist of what being trans even is. I could go either way on whether or not to put it as the lead image, because with higher prominence it exacerbates the privacy/promotion tightrope we have to walk.

There's also additional concerns that could arise (along the lines of the infamous "what image to use for Human" issue) about race, ethnicity, age, "gender vector" (transmasc, transfem, nb, etc), gender (non)conformity, transition choices, etc. These might be moot if we only have a few options for images, but as with any image depicting a group of people we should think carefully about what image(s) we choose.

Overall it's a tricky problem to sort through, but I think it's worth sorting through it as I feel like it could benefit the article. Sorry for the wall of text here. Srey Sros^talk 05:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't put such a set as the lead image; it would raise the issues Srey Sros notes, and common practice in other articles on groups/types of people seems to be to either use a picture that just shows a person (or group) going about life (including when they "don't look different from other people"), or to use no lead image. For example, Christian has no lead image and the first image is not a baptism or the like but a painting of Jesus fishing, and the first images of Jew are a star of David, a map, and then an Egyptian painting of a crowd; Lesbian does in fact have a couple of women, but Bisexual just has a flag, like our article does at present; Transsexual has no lead image per se and then an image of one person.
Such a set might be more appropriate later in the article, in the section that deals with transition. Of course, we shouldn't just take pre- and post-transition pics of someone random and combine/juxtapose them ourselves, as that would run into...a lot of issues (like whether it was an NPOV treatment of the person, which if they were living would be a BLP issue, and whether it was a kind of SYNTHy presentation). A person uploading before and after shots for this would avoid some of the issues, but we'd need to be sure it was authentic (we recently had a discussion about whether there was reliable sourcing for the person in an image in the Transsexual article being transsexual), not self-promotional, and representative. (Mathglot mentions that photos of crossdressers / transvestic fetishists could be self-promotional, I'd point out they'd also be unrepresentative, because although this article mentions that transgender can sometimes broadly include them, they aren't the focus of the article and are covered by two different articles.)
-sche (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I agree with all of these concerns. It seems like there's a rough agreement that such an image could be useful, though the sourcing circumstances would be necessarily scrutinized, so I'll consider trying to procure one from someone willing. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not at all sure about this extremely personal image record and share all the concerns expressed above, plus I am not sure if it would be that useful, but if editors do go ahead I do strongly suggest that at a minimum the should be two sets of "Transition timeline" images, both female to male and male to female. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That, of course, would be ideal. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Twins

There must be some error or unexplained context in the passage (under 'scientific studies') claiming that 'One study published in the International Journal of Transgender Health found that 33% of identical twin pairs were both trans, compared to only 2.6% of non-identical twins who were raised in the same family at the same time'. Taken at face value, this would mean that at least a third of all identical twins were trans, which is obviously untrue. (Even the figure of 2.6% for non-identical twins is probably too high.) I don't know what the study really claimed to show. I guess that the study was confined to twin pairs in which at least one individual was trans. But someone who has access to the study should check the context and edit the passage as necessary. Incidentally, 'identical twins' is not a scientific term and it should be clarified as 'monozygotic'.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:284D:A998:D69B:989D (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right that the study is only talking about twins where at least one sibling is trans. The 33% figure also only represents twins it describes as male (presumably meaning one or both sibling is a transgender woman); the statistic is 20% for identical twins overall. I don't have time to update the article right now but I'll get to it eventually if someone else doesn't before me. Since the section of the article comes from a different article, it should be fixed there too if it hasn't already. --Equivamp - talk 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I edited the article like this; please check if anything else needs to be done. -sche (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Catholic document on gender

Why was my contribution deleted? Where is your Wikipedia's neutrality? --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Riccardo Riccioni: This was already explained in the edit summary by User:Equivamp in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the Catholic teaching is not explained but only opposed and criticized. Moreover the so called "secondary source" is against our Church, esplicitly inviting the reader to leave her and join the Episcopalians!!! Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Riccardo Riccioni: this article is written in summary style. You can find more details at transgender people and religion, though keep in mind that reliable secondary sources are necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the present secondary source is not reliable. It only express anti-Catholic bigotry, as usual in English Wikipedia. Let you know what our Church say: the reader has the right to know it. --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Two sentences from WP:PRIMARY relevant here: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge and Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The Boston Globe is generally considered reliable, as it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you have a reliable, secondary source to support your addition (or a primary one which does not require interpretation) it would be welcome, either here or at transgender people and religion, the page that Elli linked to (depending on how much detail you go into). Srey Sros^talk 06:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please explain this certain sentence

“ in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are non-binary or genderqueer, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender).”

I have some issues with this sentence. How it’s written, you can be non-binary and be exclusively feminine. You can also be a masculine trans woman.

I think the wording needs to be edited. CycoMa (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, There are masculine presenting trans women and feminine presenting trans men and feminine presenting non-binary folks, so I think the sentence conveys exactly what it means to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think CycoMa makes a good point, CaptainEek. There are exclusively feminine- or masculine-presenting non-binary people, so what the sentence says isn't quite right. Shouldn't it say ...it may include people who are not exclusively men or women (as opposed to masculine or feminine)? Of course, this all really comes down to what the sources say, which I haven't checked. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 03:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the use of "masculine or feminine" (vs "men or women") was taken from the non-binary gender article. As discussed in that article's talk page archives, there are benefits (clarities) and drawbacks (confusions, imprecisions) to either wording. I like Ezlev's proposed wording tweak, especially in this context, a sentence explaining the broad scope of transgender rather than (like in the non-binary article) explaining the scope of non-binary alone. -sche (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the sourcing works as is for the new wording, too, so I've made the change. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 05:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t the whole point in being transgender about identifying outside of birth sex. Masculine for example literally means “ having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men.”

There is such thing as trans women who are extremely masculine, there are even trans women who look like men.

There is also such thing as masculine cis women.

Gender identity isn’t about appearance or characteristics.

So I think the sentence should be changed to something along the lines of. “There are individuals who don’t exclusively identify as male or female.”

CycoMa (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact there is such thing as masculine non-binary people too. CycoMa (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I (hopefully) fixed the problem by simplifying the sentence. There is no need for us to try to define non-binary gender in the lead, as it has it's own article. Trying to define it here just causes pointless arguments and edit wars. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I support this change. It's not necessary to list those variations of non-binary in the sentence, and lots of men and women (cis or trans) are not "exclusively" masculine or feminine (whatever "exclusively" could even possibly mean) but are still absolutely men or women. Stating "not exclusively men or women" also raises issues. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, Kaldari. This is definitely a more elegant solution than mine was. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 23:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A great improvement, a lede needs to be simple, straightforward and enticing for the reader. I was going to say what Crossroads just wrote. Every person is an individual, including trans people. In the real world I guess we all know more women who are more 'butch' and men who are more feminine. The does not stop for the diversity of trans folk. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: Further expanding the section for religious opinions

The religion section looks a little bit bare, with just the few sentences about the Catholic Church, that doesn't even fully explain the Catholic view of Transgenderism. I am requesting that someone (as I cannot do it myself) perhaps expand this and write the views on Transgenderism for other religions, like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism/Native Beliefs, whatever. I just think it is a relevant subject and the current section for it is very, very empty. I would do it myself (with permission of course) but I do not have edit access to this article, is there a way I can get it? Anyways, just that section is looking very empty I think it would be relevant for people doing research and a good addition to expand on the Religion section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlayingLife6 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@PlayingLife6: Howdy hello! A few things: your comment has been moved to the bottom, as new comments go at the bottom of talk pages. Two, make sure to sign your comments usign four tildes "~" . Next up: you can simply write up some text here on the talk page, and if its kosher we can go ahead and add it for you. So I encourage you to write a well researched paragraph and we can add it in! AdmiralEek (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi PlayingLife6! In addition to what AdmiralEek already said, you might be interested in the article Transgender people and religion, which focuses more directly on religious opinions about transgender people. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you both :) PlayingLife6 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Trans

@Gender Roamer: Personally, I prefer having shortened to "trans" in the first sentence, that's the standard way we do our first sentences and it helps with dismabiguation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CaptainEek. What I took away from the guides on WP:OTHERNAMES and MOS:BOLD is that only alt names that point to the page should be bolded in the first line. That's just one reason I made the change I did. "Transgender, often shortened as trans, people" also read awkwardly to me. I'll defer to you guys on this. Gender Roamer (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

hi Gender Roamer if possible please could you split up your edits into smaller chunks, that first edit changes so many things, if someone disagrees with one, they might just undo all your whole edit just to remove one single thing you did in that edit. I must admit i am not sure about some of your changes but I will reread tomorrow. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bodney. The changes aren't mine, actually. If you look, you can see that I was restoring the beginning of the page to a prior version. All I did after that was move an image. Gender Roamer (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)