Talk:Transgender

Trans*

Why does the Transgender article contain no reference to trans* ? This umbrella term was introduced about 2010, and made it to the OED in 2018, where the definition states that the asterisk serves "to indicate the inclusion of gender identities such as gender-fluid, agender, etc., alongside transsexual and transgender." It could be because academics in American universities dislike the term, but I doubt it, here is Judith Butler quoted in The Guardian in 2021: "I’ve been identified variously as butch, queer, trans* for over 50 years." A reputable justification for the term is provided by /Duke University TSq 2014: "Although transgender has been used since the early 1990s as an umbrella term to cover the widest possible range of gender variation, it is now understood in some circles to represent only binary notions of transness and to refer only to trans men and trans women rather than to those who contest the gender binary (Killermann 2012). Proponents of adding the asterisk to trans argue that it signals greater inclusivity of new gender identities and expressions and better represents a broader community of individuals. Trans* is thus meant to include not only identities such as transgender, transsexual, trans man, and trans woman that are prefixed by trans- but also identities such as genderqueer, neutrios, intersex, agender, two-spirit, cross-dresser, and genderfluid." Brymor (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Not saying we shouldn't mention it, but the asterisk is rather passe now. Just regular trans is the default for most (e.g., [1]). But here's an article from Time about the OED addition as well as some of its controversy. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. I agree that trans* should be mentioned - if Judith Butler can refer to herself as trans* in 2021, and there is no entry in Wikipedia to explain this, that is a significant omission. I shall not be attempting the edit myself, however - I personally think that over-ambitious umbrella terms in this field are bound to offend many members of the community, and are best avoided. Brymor (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Transgenderism

The antiquated term "transgenderism" is used in the 2nd paragraph of the history section, not in a way to keep with historical accuracy through quoting, it is simply being used as a word to encompass the idea of "transgender". This term is referenced in context in other parts of the article in giving why it has fallen out of use; it is still used by those who are either out of date with their knowledge or who are discriminative against the trans community however it is no longer considered correct even within medical circles and is held in distain by the majority of the trans community. LandmarkFilly54 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@LandmarkFilly54 Changed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

New section to Scientific Studies

Hello everyone. My first time on Wikipedia. I made it just for this. I would like to add some details to the scientific studies section, or perhaps create an entirely new section.

The study I'd like to reference is "Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children's Past-Life Memories". Here is the full APA citation: Pehlivanova, M., Janke, M. J., Lee, J., & Tucker, J. B. (2018). Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(4), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1523266

Other references to include: This podcast: https://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation (this is definitely worth a quick read/listen)

These references from the Wikipedia article on Dr. Ian Stevenson, who was a lead professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia for 50 years: Stevenson, I (2000). "The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance". Medical Hypotheses. 54 (4): 652–9. doi:10.1054/mehy.1999.0920. PMID 10859660. S2CID 15947669.

Stevenson, I (1977). "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 164 (5): 305–26. doi:10.1097/00005053-197705000-00002. PMID 864444. S2CID 30398311.

And this book by Dr. Ian Stevenson: Stevenson, I. (1997). Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects (2 Vols.). Praeger

This article may be worth a read as well, but I'm not sure if it should be referenced: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

Here is an example of what how the section could read: "Research conducted by Dr. Ian Stevenson, a lead professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia for 50 years, suggested certain elements of one's personality are defined by a factor other than genetics and the environment. As he continued his research, Dr. Stevenson began to believe reincarnation could be this third contributing factor. He traveled all over the world and conducted over 3000 case studies of children claiming to remember someone's past life. Not only did his work claim to show children remembering details of someone else's past they couldn't have possibly known about, it also culminated in a selection of 200 case studies where he claimed to have linked the birthmarks and birth defects on children recalling past memories, with fatal wounds inflicted on an actual person who died, and whose details matched the memories of the child. A study completed by researchers at the University of Virginia following in his footsteps found that 95% of gender non-conforming children who had memories of a past life, had memories of a past life of the opposite sex from the one they were born."

Please note that I am a random person; not from the University of Virginia. Literally if you Google "trans past lives" this reference is the first to come up so it's not hard to find. Also please know I am not trans, however I don't believe this is controversial as it is very scientific, and I even think this information could really make the world a better place, so please approve it asap. Thank you.

LightProof1995 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I would support a version of this getting included. There's certainly interesting reading behind the links and a quick google search shows several million results making it's inclusion mention-worthy in my humble opinion. I look forward to further comments from my colleagues at WP:LGBT. JC aka Jthekid15 (Communications) 21:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, this is WP:FRINGE material and doesn't belong on a broad overview of the topic 'Transgender'. Equivamp - talk 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, while I am new, as I understand it, this is not WP:FRINGE material as my sources are peer-reviewed. Specifically, the "Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories" is peer-reviewed in the International Journal of Sexual Health, "The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance" is peer-reviewed in Medical Hypotheses, "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation" is peer-reviewed in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, and "Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects" was peer-reviewed in two journals: Omega, and the Journal of the American Society for Physical Research. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Publication in peer-reviewed journals can establish acceptance of a theory, but for Wikipedia's purposes, Ian Stevenson's theory of past life memories as a metaphysical phenomena (rather than the more likely psychological causes) is a Fringe Theory with a capital F. I'd also charitably call it crankery, bunkum, and balderdash. See the criticism section on his article for discussion of his work, which certainly does not reflect current scientific consensus.

The 2018 study is certainly interesting, but I don't think it warrants more than a single sentence of commentary. A reference to it may be more suitable at Childhood gender nonconformity, if worded neutrally. The addition you've proposed has hardly anything do with the subject here, and seems more concerned with defending the existence of reincarnation. It would not be an acceptable addition here in its current state. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 23:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the first paragraph of the "criticism of Ian Stevenson" you link is this: "The Journal of the American Medical Association referred to Stevenson's Cases of the Reincarnation Type (1975) as a "painstaking and unemotional" collection of cases that were "difficult to explain on any assumption other than reincarnation."[24] In September 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's research.[25] Writing in the journal, the psychiatrist Harold Lief described Stevenson as a methodical investigator and added, "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known (I have said as much to him) as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'."[26] The issue proved popular: the journal's editor, the psychiatrist Eugene Brody, said he had received 300–400 requests for reprints.[24]" Note that The Journal of the American Medical Association is yet another peer-reviewed medical journal in addition to the ones I listed previously. So obviously there are both plenty of people who think this is hogwash, and plenty of people who are academically-minded and who believe this is could be real. I agree this should be represented on the Childhood gender nonconformity page, however IF this is real then it could benefit any children out there with their gender dysphoria who ARE trans because they were born in a completely different body in a past life; also this not-hogwash-in-my-humble-opinion idea COULD help stop violence against trans people especially in places like Brazil where murders of transgender peoples are horribly rampant, but also over a quarter of the population believes in reincarnation (Spiritism). Therefore to not have this information be as public as possible seems a crime against humanity and that's exactly why I came here and wrote it. If the paragraph needs to be revised okay but please include something here. EDIT: I revised it slightly, so it doesn't sound like it's necessarily defending reincarnation now, and the background on him can just lead into the more relevant sentence on gender nonconformity. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. This is hogwash. Absent a rigorous scientist consensus, we can't possibly include this. As far as it might improve the trans reputation in some places, that is hardly Wikipedias job. We print what can be verified in reliable sources, no matter how it makes subjects look. Plus, saying trans folks exist because of reincarnation would probably be quite poorly recieved by audiences who don't believe in it. The only way this could be included is if you found a different source that said that some cultural practices believe trans folks are reincarnated. But we would be careful to note it is a sincerely held cultural belief, not a possible scientific answer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the sources I list appear in 6(!!!) peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. If that is not a "rigorous scientist consensus" please define what is. Also please actually read the links I posted before calling what I wrote hogwash. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree with CaptainEek. That’s WP:GREATWRONGS, not WP:NPOV. Reincarnation is 90% unfounded superstition and 10% WP:FRINGE theory (and that’s being generous), a few possibly respectable scientists saying “maybe” doesn’t pass the Sagan Standard, and information about it should not be treated with WP:UNDUE weight. Dronebogus (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the sources I list appear in 6(!!!) peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals -- a lot more than a few scientists saying "maybe." I am new to Wikipedia so I didn't understand WP:GREATWRONGS until you mentioned it. Regardless, I still believe this can be mentioned here while retaining WP:NPOV and not going beyond its WP:UNDUE weight. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

“reincarnation exists” is an extraordinary claim. In order for it to be mentioned here it would need A LOT more than just six papers. Dronebogus (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that this isn't a WP:COATRACK for sources about reincarnation without mention of gender related topics. --Equivamp - talk 01:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2018 article is the most important one to be referenced. It talks about the reincarnation stuff a lot. It really details how the children aren't just making it up -- Past life regression in adults may be fake, but the past-life memories of children seem to be real... Perhaps it can be condensed but I feel something about Dr. Ian Stevenson should still be mentioned. Maybe a sentence is needed linking nonconformity in children with gender dysphoria, which the occurrence of in a person is defined as being transgender. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like that would end up running afoul of WP:SYNTH if you're using that to make claims about why that source applies to this topic... Equivamp - talk 01:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the 2018 source makes the connection between transgender identity and gender nonconformity here: "Gender nonconforming behaviors in the cases included wearing clothes/hairstyles or engaging in play more typical of the nonnatal sex (or reluctance to engage in sex-typical play or have same-sex playmates) and gender dysphoria or transgender identification (Stevenson, 1977b; Tucker & Keil, 2001)." LightProof1995 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: literally all of your edits except for maybe one are to this article or its talk page. Several users have all agreed this is probably not worth including in this article. You have not provided any “extraordinary proof” to bolster your claims and probably never will be able to. If you don’t find something else to do you may be blocked per WP:SPA WP:CIR WP:NPOV and WP:BLUDGEON. I understand you are probably acting in good faith but we can’t sit here and find different ways to say “no” over and over. Dronebogus (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I made a new page on processing aluminum. Also WP:BITE. Also these are the last edits I will make to this for at least a month, obviously I didn't know about the Single-Purpose account stuff. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Are any of these sources secondary, or are they all primary research? Politanvm ^talk 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure. I don't think I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. However, I am not affiliated with the University of Virginia in any way and I didn't contribute to any of the references I present. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a brief guide to Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources at WP:PSTS. A primary source would be someone sharing about their research results, while a secondary source would be someone writing about the primary source. Reputably published secondary sources are the gold standard for Wikipedia. Primary sources need to be used with extreme care. Politanvm ^talk 03:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• This reminds me of my favorite thread on Quora [2], which shows just how bad published or peer reviewed research actually can be. Not all research is created equal. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Please don't edit war over the language used in this article; discuss here instead, as needed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

the definition of sex and how it relates to the stated definition and use for transgender and transsexual

Sex is defined as which gametes an organism produces. In accordance with our stance, it has been established, even on the sex wikipedia page, that there are "no other universal distinctions between male and female"-- only differences in gametes. Sex is based on which gametes you produce, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to transition from one sex to another. The current trans article states not only that it IS possible, but that transGENDER (transition of GENDER) is the same as this supposedly possible transition of sex, which undoes all the discussion about the difference between sex and gender that has been had over the last several decades. Plainly, you cannot transition from one sex to another- and this Wikipedia page should not be spreading misinformation saying that such a thing is possible. Trust me, if it were, I would be on it.

Moving on from this, the definition of transsexual is NOT somebody who literally transitions from one sex to another because 1. as we established, that is not possible with modern medicine. And 2. If transexuals supposedly do transition to become another sex, then that means both that 1. they aren't that sex innately and that there is some sex to transition to, insinuating that there ARE more physical differences aside from gametes, and 2. that they are "more" of that sex than just transgender people are, which is extremely transmedicalist. Not all women have high estrogen, breasts, hips, etc. Transexuals pursue a physical transition to achieve SECONDARY sex characteristics STEREOTYPICALLY associated with another sex than their own. Saying otherwise would indicate that you think things like hormones, breasts, hips, etc are what make the female sex when we have already gone to great lengths to establish that nothing more than ova gametes define that.

Transsexuals do not transition physically to another sex. I propose we take the claim that they magically can, down. It is impossible to transition to another sex, I propose we take anything down that insinuates that. Nativebun (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) User:Nativebun

You have just posted a big wad of what we on Wikipedia call original research. Do you have any sources on the topic of this article that support your point of view? If not, we cannot according to Wikipedia's core values, include it in this article in anyway.

By the way, nothing in the stable version of this article suggests that anyone can change their gamete production (except in the sense of ceasing to produce gametes, I suppose), so all of your commentary on that particular issue suggests a failure of reading comprehension on your part. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The article states that transsexuals can change sex. The definition of sex refers to which gametes an organism produces, nothin more nothing less. Transsexuals are not able to change which gametes they produce. Your response suggests a failure of reading comprehension on your part regarding my proposal. Nativebun (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

When the article refers to transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another it is not referring to gamete production, which seems obvious to me as a native speaker of English. If you don't understand what "transition" means in this context, you are not competent to edit this article IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You cannot transition from one sex to another. I am literally trans, and what we CAN do is transition to having the secondary sex characteristics of another sex-- that is what we mean by transition, and it is insulting that you think we have to pretend otherwise. If you don't understand that, then IMO you are not competent enough to make edits let alone challenge others on this subject. Nativebun (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

While it may be tempting to edit Wikipedia to reflect one's personal experience, this is never a good idea. What matters on Wikipedia is not your personal language relating to "sex" vs. "secondary sexual characteristics", but rather the language used in recent, reliable sources -like the ones used in this article. Please also see the article sex assignment, and its sources, to see where your edits in article space diverged from what the RS actually say. Nobody says or implies that anyone can stop producing one set of gametes and start producing another, and your repeated assertion to the contrary does point to CIR issues on your part. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nativebun, thanks for engaging on the talk page. As Newimpartial says, your suggestions read like original research. When making potentially controversial change suggestions, you'll need to show that the current article in some way doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. For example:

1. Does the article as currently written do original research? In other words, is it adding commentary or synthesizing the cited sources in a way the sources themselves do not?
2. Are there reliable sources missing, that would support your edit suggestion?
3. Are the current sources inappropriately unduly weighting a certain viewpoint.

Without some argument grounded in Wikipedia guidelines, your suggestions aren't likely to gain consensus from the community. It may be helpful to search the archives for this Talk page, using the "search archives" box at the top of the page, to make sure you're not repeating arguments that have already been addressed. Best, Politanvm ^talk 20:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response! I suppose then that there are reliable sources missing to support the statement that it is possible to change sex, the definition of sex being grounded in which gametes an organism produces. If someone could pull up scholarly medical articles showing that a recent treatment has been devised for humans to be able to change which gametes we produce, and that this is something that all self-identified transsexuals use, then that would be lovely. There are reliable sources missing to support the statement made in the article that anyone who identifies as transsexual is somehow able to accomplish this feat of changing sex that no modern medicine is currently capable of. Nativebun (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The term sex, like most words in English, carries multiple meanings. In the case of transition it is generally sex hormones and anatomical sex that are altered, according to the reliable sources relevant to the topic of this article. If you have recent, relevant and reliable sources supporting your apparently original contention that "sex" in all instances means precisely what you want it to mean, I would love to consult those source for myself. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The EXACT same thing can be said to you- if you can provide scholarly articles supporting your apparently original contention that "sex" in all instances means precisely what you want it to mean, I would love to consult those source for myself. Nativebun (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant sources - for example, those relating to changing one's legal sex - are already cited in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You can see all of the citations in this article. You haven’t provided any new reliable sources. You haven’t identified any claims in the article that aren’t supported by its inline citation. Without offering something tangible, this discussion isn’t going to go anywhere, and we’re all going to waste our time without making any improvements to the article. So please provide some reliable source, or point out specific claims in the article that aren’t supported by their inline citations. Politanvm ^talk 17:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to be snarky and make a comment about clownfish. but I'll just repeat what I said on your user talk page but you didn't reply to:

I suggest starting with sex assignment at birth if you are less familiar with the term. For humans, the current nomenclature is not "biological sex" (e.g., see the AMA memo here and BOT Report 15 here).

Your personal views (and mine) don't much matter here. Professional organizations and reliable sources demonstrably use "sex assignment at birth" and define sex assignment as based on not just gamates but also gonads, tubrecals/genitalia, presence of a uterus, hormones, and structures of the 23rd chromosome for humans. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay if you'd like to include those other areas that's fine, but it doesn't support your position. Transsexuals cannot attain a uterus, new gonads, genitalia, and new chromosomal structures. Perhaps they can cut their bodies to make superficial structures made to appear visibly similar to actual genitalia etc of another sex, but they cannot have a real one- and that is okay. They certainly cannot attain new chromosomal structures. The only thing that they can change is hormones, but science has reached a consensus that due to the great amount of hormonal variance within sexes anyways, changing hormones does not constitute sex change. This is part of the argument supporting no hormone requirements/restrictions for trans women in sports. Transsexuals cannot change sex. People who self-identify as transexuals do not necessarily even try changing what is sometimes called "sex re-assignment surgery", many ie blaire white calls herself transsexual just because she got chest implants and hormones. Unless you are insinuating that breasts of a certain size and certain levels of hormones are necessary for being of the female sex? Nativebun (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nativebun: Your personal views on what it means to be transsexual frankly don't matter here and this talk page is not a forum to share them or argue about breast sizes or Youtube celebs. We go by what reliable sources say. You neeed to find some reliable sources that support your claims and explain how they relate to the reliable sources in the article. Otherwise you are only using this space and article to make a WP:POINT about what you view as "the truth" which is fine to do on Twitter but not Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nativebun: Per Politanvm's comment, find a reliable source or drop the stick. Using sex to mean "any sexual trait or characteristic" is a well-established practice. You may personally believe that the term refers strictly to gamete-production, and is therefore unalterable by all medical intervention, but for encyclopediac purposes, that's a fringe theory. That's not what the sentence in Sex ("The type of gametes produced by an organism defines its sex") is saying (and even if it was, Wikipedia is not a reliable source).

Regardless of your good intentions, or (borrowing an empty dogwhistle) "biological reality", defining sex in humans this way has very little purpose, except to deny and exclude the experiences of transsexual people who identify as having changed sexes. It also has troubling implications for people whose bodies produce neither eggs nor spermatazoa. I'd never assume this was your intent, but it's nonetheless a change which cedes a lot of ground to the perennial "gender skeptical" POV warriors who wish to describe trans women in terms like "a male-sexed person who identifies as a woman", etc.

Yes, sex reassignment surgery does "reassign sex". No, trans∗ women do not need to have female-sexed gametes or genitals to be female, and yes, we should compete in women's sports, for reasons which are as self-evident as they are unrelated to the definition of biological sex. The article lede implies nothing to the contary.

Wikipedia is beholden to Verifiability, and a result, articles do not have the luxury of unpacking every minor epistemological nuance in the distinction between sex and gender. Moreover, Neutral point of view means it reflects only beliefs held by prominent reliable sources, not its editors. Learn to live with that, and enjoy editing, or perhaps (per EvergreenFir's suggestion) open an account on Twitter or YouTube. Sincerely, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 23:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Would like to help you with this, Nativebun. But I've lost patients with this general topic, months ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

no worries haha wikipedia is exhausting sometimes, take care Nativebun (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just following up here that I agree with Nativebun’s edits, so I have restored the article. Entremark (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is quite clearly no consensus here for Nativebun's edit. Please self revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How odd for an account created in early December to make their first 10 edits today and immediately start continuing this edit war... And their user page makes a fart joke to boot. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Note I have just stricken the comment above by Entremark per WP:SOCKSTRIKE as that user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nativebun: Hi NativeBun :) I believe I can help you with your section (Keep in mind, I'm new too, so I can't put it up myself). Yeah, the current into paragraph of the Sex Wikipedia article should probably be edited for more clarity too. Just as EvergreenFir says, sex can actually be determined not just from gametes, but also gonads, external anatomy, internal anatomy, hormones, and presence/absence of a y chromosome. The Sexual Characteristics Wikipedia page has a great table explaining it. The current intro paragraphs of the sex Wikipedia page also mention chromosomes determining sex after saying gametes do but really it should mention all these Evergreen and I listed as determining sex. I think the statement of "The types of gametes an organism produces defines its sex" as determining sex is probably more used to define the sex of animals, not humans. The gamete-only definition has obvious problems when applied to humans as many people can't produce gametes at all (as others have said). A section here explaining this could be titled "Transgender and Intersex Persons". Here is an example of a paragraph for it, with references:

"Transgender people and Intersex people are separate identities, however they are not mutually exclusive identities. Intersex is a term referring to people born with non-binary sexual characteristics, while transgender people can be born with a body considered to have all-male or all-female sexual characteristics. Both groups are often marginalized and face discrimination, but are separate groups, as oftentimes intersex people often identify as male or female, choosing whichever description their bodies most closely fit. Both transgender and intersex persons may undergo sex reassignment surgery to alter their primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Even though a transgender person who is born all-male or all-female and then gets sex reassignment surgery to alter their sexual characteristics would have a similar physical body as an intersex person instead of an all-male or all-female body, the term "intersex" would still not apply to them as they were not born with those nonbinary sexual characteristics.

LightProof1995 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unclear

I genuinely don't understand the difference between this (transgender) and transsexual. Both leads attempt to explain it to the reader, but in my perception both fail. Both mention gender identity and sex assignment, but it's simply not clear what is the difference. --77.162.8.57 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)