Talk:Shemale

NPOV on perjorative claims

The statement "most notable for its slang usage in a pejorative context" is sourced by [1] (Wimmin, Wimps, and Wallflowers) but the source does not support the claim of pejorative use (the actual text says "restricted to heterosexual use, the terms are not flattering", but that's all). It does support the claim that "shemale" is most commonly used in the sex industry, however.

I strongly feel the initial line should be changed to something like, "Shemale is an English noun most commonly used in a popular subcategory of pornography to refer to persons who appear to be physically female in most regards, but possess male genitals. Many transsexual women consider the term offensive because it suggests pre-operative and non-operative male-to-female transsexuals are something other than female."

Similarly, the claim "In LGBT communities, especially amongst transgender individuals, the term is considered offensive" seems overly broad without qualification of "often" or "most". This claim is sourced by [1][4][5] even though [1] indicates that some transgender women choose shemale as an identity category, [4] only says (sometimes offensive), and [5] is a highly questionable resource presumably written by a single anonymous author. An acceptable source for this would be a large national or international organization of transgender people which states in some official capacity that "the transgender community at large finds this offensive", not one person's opinion.

I know bringing this up will inflame passions. I don't want to create controversy. But this article has a historical tendency to be overrun by transwomen's POV that "shemale is pejorative" because most transwomen don't want to be called anything other than "woman". When people try to source the claim that "shemale" is a pejorative, it is sourced with websites where the material is created by a single author, usually a transwoman, who feels the same way. Not only does this not reflect what the word "shemale" means to most non-transgender people, it sends the impression that nearly all transgender people consider the term to be a slur. There are a number of transgender communities (such as various online communities with personal avatars, furry fandom both online and in real life, even entire countries like Thailand) where the term "shemale" is not generally considered offensive, even among transgender women.

In any case, the primary use of shemale is a description of a certain kind of gender/sex combination that many men are sexually and interpersonally attracted to. Yes, most transwomen find the term offensive, and that bears mention here. But most transwomen find being called "man" offensive, and that doesn't mean the article on "man" should begin: "Man is most notable for its slang use in a pejorative context against transgender women".

--75.180.20.49 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC) www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.120.118 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.133.166 (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this below listed section of text is relevant as it is more related to articles describing medical conditions. This part is also rather insensitive to sufferers of the condition in many ways or at least those who do not identify with genetic males that have augmented female breasts.

"In many instances intersex persons born with ambiguous genitalia have, at the request of their parents, or on the advice of surgeons, been surgically altered to appear more male before puberty (which may be the reason that many shemales appear to have female skeletal structure and fat distribution, feminine body hair patterns, and/or small genitals resembling those of a prepubescent boy); this often occurs in children with Reifenstein syndrome, a form of PAIS."

The term Shemale is specifically used for males with breast augmentation and not for partial mosaics, hermaphrodites and intersex individuals or surgical 'normalisation' procedures. I also agree with www.viptravesti.net that labelling the term pejorative is rather misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.173.207 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 75.180.20.49, and note that more than two-thirds of this "article" is little more than a rant against the use of the term. The ones who do NOT find the term offensive are true shemales, who are simply MTF transgendered people who have chosen to keep their male genetalia. The article says absolutely nothing about the shemales who do prefer the use of the term so as to distinguish themselves from those who've had gender reassignment surgery. Finally, the reason many shemales appear not to have developed masculine traits is simply because they're from more progressive countries who don't have any qualms about prescribing testosterone-suppressing medication before they reach puberty. Medical conditions which cause adrogen insensitivity are exceedingly rare, and could not possibly be the cause for more than a very tiny fraction of boys who do not develop as males at puberty. Furthermore, failure to develop masculine traits at puberty does not result in the development of feminine traits, as the article currently suggests. All in all, this is a very poorly written article and should be completely rewritten from an objective perspective so as to remove the strong anti-shemale and anti-porn NPOV with which it is currently dripping. 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.120 (talk)

If you can provide reliable references for any of the above comments, you're welcome to do so. I do expect, however, that some statements such as "The term Shemale is specifically used for males with breast augmentation" will not be able to be reliably referenced, as it's not accurate. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we follow what reliable sources states not what we want to write. -- Banjeboi 06:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

'Reliable sources' are usually made by academics not in touch with the situation on the ground which represents the real view. Try Urban Dictionary for example. It is very likely 'reliable sources' have never personally known any 'Shemales' or even been in the 'Shemale' club or porn scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.33.159 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV re-added

I have re-added the NPOV tag following WP:COI edits by User:James Cantor, made to align the the article with the POV of his boss coworker Ray Blanchard. I also added a reference for the word derogatory. I also believe that we should have a section called "academic use" vs. "scientific/medical use." Separating the ideologies of Ray Blanchard and Janice Raymond is a POV move. Both hold the same points of view about the terms she-male and about trans people. Jokestress (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

has this been resolved? -- Banjeboi 04:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the scientific RS's fail to support the activists' POV, no resolution is likely without substantial input from otherwise uninvolved editors. I recommend reading the arguments and sources, and asserting your own conclusion.— James Cantor (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the main issue in your opinion? -- Banjeboi 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The main issue, in my opinion, is the use of WP by some trans activists to encourage the use of the terms they themselves prefer over the terms used by other members of the trans communities or by medical/scientific experts. There are activists who prefer terms that indicate their womanhood (such as transwoman) over terms that do not, and the term "she-male" contains includes the word "male" rather than "female." The term is used non-pejoratively, however, by sex trade workers and in sex research studies.
Rather than merely indicate the alternative uses, however, the article space is becoming another WP battleground on which community activists selectively cite the uses that they prefer and attempt to discredit those who do otherwise. (That is, instead of the article saying Some people use the term this way while other people use it that way the article is being pushed to say This term means only this one thing and all dissenters are transphobic.) This pattern has played through a great many of the trans-related articles. Rather than precipitate a repeat conflict, however, I instead encourage you to read the article and sources and come to your own opinion.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I may be missing something here but both cases are true. It is commonly used in a derogatory fashion and, similar to other slurs, has been in part either adopted or reclaimed. It is still a despised term and any scientist who had the nerve to set up a classification would seem rather disreputable whereas just noting it as a self-descriptor by those the scientist is studying would seem acceptable similar to having a list of different labels or even a blank where someone would self-identify. Blanchard's bit, IMHO, should include that his work is maligned for such usage. Meanwhile, erotic and sex industries capitalize on the use and transwomen do identify as shemale as needed to earn money, they would also just as easily identify as almost anything else conceivable and believable to appease a customer's preference. So I think it's a little disingenuous to assert the point with more emphasis than that. IMHO, it's a temporary label - even when used as a self-descriptor - not conforming to one's self-identity as much as reclaiming a word like "freak" "nigger" and "faggot" to take the sting out and dis-empower ones degraders. Usage within one's circle can be seen from a sociological view but I'm quite suspicious of adopting it well beyond that or that the number of people doing so is significant. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can suggest only that one look up the references given in the article, which do not say what the main page says they say. For example, the main page says that the term shemale "is often seen by transsexual people as a term of abuse" citing as a source Herbst (2001). Herbst (2001) does not say any such thing, however. In fact, the only comment that Herbst makes regarding the connotation of the term is "The term may also refer positively to androgyny." The second source given on the main page is an online dictionary, which has questionable status as an RS, and which says, in parentheses, "sometimes offensive," which I agree with, but which is not very neutrally conveyed by 'often a term of abuse.'

In general, the term 'shemale' is considered derogatory when applied to people other than MtF folks who have socially transitioned but not undergone gential surgery (e.g., masculine lesbians or MtF folk who have completed transition). The cites in opposition to the term are comments made by community activists who are generally postsurgical MtF folk (and, thus, for whom the term would be innaccurate and negative), who have expertise only in areas outside linguistics (such as biology), and who are expressing their personal (and non-expert) opinions about the use of the term for them rather than the use of the term in general.

To repeat my earlier comment, I agree entirely with the page reflecting the mixed status of the term, but not with using the article space to actively promote the idea that the term is or is not offensive. As a tangent, I am not actually the person who added the POV-tag to the page. Whether the current content of the page accurately conveys what is said in the cites, or adds a spin of its own, is up to you to decide for yourself after reading the RS's.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for input regarding the online dictionaries at RS/N.— James Cantor (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When referring to trans women, this is a term used by Janice Raymond, Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, and pornographers. Almost all trans women find the term and the people who use it abhorrent, as noted in the reliable source. Contorting this into some sort of value-neutral term is just another attempt to insert the POV of your boss colleague/buddy/etc. This article is a big mess thanks to drive-by edits. It lacks cohesion and fails WP:UNDUE by trying to present this as a value-neutral term. Jokestress (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When WP becomes What-Jokestress-Says-Pedia, then what Jokestress says about "almost all trans women" might be relevant (as if she spoke for almost all transwomen). Meanwhile, all we have is some of the sources (of debatable reliability) saying that some people object to the term when used in some circumstances (such as when refering to lesbians). None of the sources says anything approaching "almost all trans women" nor uses any term as laden as "abhorrent." The RS's do, however, contain what I have already said: There are people who find the term negative and there are people who find it neutral; the article should therefore reflect that. Because no one here is presenting the term as value-neutral (I have written multiple times that the term is used different ways by different people), Jokestress is debating a mirage of her own creation. (Missing from Jokestress list of who uses the term how are the sources (added to the page by people other than me) that also provide only neutral definitions, like Blanchard, devoid of negative connotation.)
Moreover, Blanchard and Bailey do not use the term to refer to postoperative folks, and Jokestress should either provide an RS showing they do or strike out her misstatement. Finally, although we collaborate on many projects, Blanchard is not my boss. Jokestress should provide evidence he is, or strike that out as well.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Most transwomen find the term abhorrent." Please read the article more carefully for the source to which I referred in my earlier comment. I can provide plenty of other sources that reflect reality about this term's usage. If you have a source that says this term is a "neutral" way to describe trans women, please provide it. Jokestress (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• After I point out that none of the cites support your claim, a response of "Go find the cite yourself" essentially proves my point. There is no such cite.
• Statements like "I can provide plenty of other sources..." are similarly unconvincing when unaccompanied by any actual RS's. I would indeed encourage you, or anyone, to locate such RS's. For what it is worth, the discussion at RS/N suggests that such RS's should be from more established sources than the online dictionaries currently appearing on the page.
• As for RS's for neutral definitions: The Oxford English Dictionary makes explicit when terms have negative connotations, and the OED entry for she-male contains none of the OED's usual notes to that effect.
• Finally, given that you have also failed to produce any RS's about who my boss is (nor for Blanchard or Bailey's use she-malefor postoperative MtF folks), you also have some striking-out to do.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Connotations section is good but must not degenerate into propaganda against adult industry or shemales working in adult industry which appears to be the opinion of the academics Laura Castañeda and Shannon Campbell or Melissa Ditmore. Their writing form fuses concepts together, preempts and confuses and does not help separate and clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.45.68 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The connotations section is a string of WP:PEACOCK descriptors for low-end sources, written in a style to pursuade rather than merely inform readers. A section that is successfully NPOV would simply indicate the fact (there are folks who feel the term is derogatory) followed by the references to the folks saying so; indeed, that is how the science/medical section is. The unnecessary quotes, descriptors of authors, and whole titles of books merely target readers to convince them of the statements rather than merely to describe the statements to them. The science/medical section is the superior format, despite that the authors, statements, and sources used there dwarf the reliability of those given the immodest connotations section.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed introduction

The lede below is designed to describe 150+ years of uses, from the most general sense to the most specific sense.

Shemale (sometimes she-male) is a slang term used in various ways since the mid-19th century for "almost anyone who appears to have bridged gender lines." This includes assertive women and passive men in its most general sense. The term has sometimes been used in zoology as a synonym for gynandromorph, non-human animals that display combinations of male and female traits or behaviors.

Its most common contemporary usage is to describe humans in the context of sexual orientation or gender identity. It has been used to describe lesbians, gay men, and transgender people. Through its use in sex work, the term shemale has become closely associated with trans women who have female secondary sex characteristics but have not undergone vaginoplasty. Other synonyms used in pornography include ladyboy and chicks with dicks. In this context, it is considered a dehumanizing slur according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and most transwomen find the term abhorrent.

I recommend organizing the article to discuss the earliest uses (mainly agressive women), then use in zoology, then finally its use as a slur/porn term for trans women. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that that proposed lede is workable:

• Starting a definition with historical commentary instead of the definition is prolix. It buries the actual information. It is routine in WP to start with the definition before etymological commentary.
• Providing alternative definitions of slang terms in order of generality is arbitrary. (It also buries the actual information again.) It is routine in WP to go from most common use to least common use.
• It favors the weakest sources (which are questionable as WP:RS's at all) over the stronger and more numerous sources, including multiple, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals.
• It asserts as fact what is instead an opinion of activist(s). (The opinions of activists can certainly be relevant and should be included, of course; the problem is when those opinions are falsely asserted as facts.)

Thus, the proposed lead violates WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:MOS, and WP:NPOV. I propose instead returning to the version of 13:43, 3 November 2009 , which I place below for reference.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede version of 13:43, 3 November 2009

Shemale (sometimes she-male but almost never used in the form she-man) is a slang term for person with female breasts but male genitalia. In zoology, the term refers to non-human animals that display other combinations of male and female anatomy. The technical term is gynandromorph, which is used mostly in scientific contexts. Shemale is sometimes considered derogatory when applied to male-to-female transsexuals (transwomen).

Other slang terms for she-male include ladyboy and chicks with dicks. The sexual preference for persons with these physical characteristics is gynandromorphophilia or gynemimetophilia. Slang terms for individuals with such preferences include "tranny chasers" and "admirers." There are specialty genres of pornography and prostitution/escort services that cater to such individuals.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's get the rest of the article organized, then we'll deal with all the problems in the lede above. Jokestress (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemme get this right...You choose to discuss the lede by proposing one, but when someone responds to it and proposes a different lede, you decide instead not to discuss the lede at all?

The body will still be there after the lede, and WP has no time limit.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I proposed writing the lede after we get everything in the article organized a couple of days ago.[[1] Jokestress (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by 60.53.170.20

Trans women should not be used as it confuses Transsexuals with Shemales. I remind - term is generally acceptable for shemales, especially those in the adult industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.170.20 (talk • contribs)

I moved your revision to my comment to its own section. Please do not make changes to other editors' comments. As far as "shemale" only being a slur for women who are "fully transitioned," we need a source for that. According to the source in the article, it is a dehumanizing slur for all trans women, regardless of what steps they take to transition. Jokestress (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Should start with common and current uses, because that is what most users will be looking for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.170.20 (talk • contribs)

• • • IP 60.53.170.20 is correct that the term "transwomen" is ambiguous and should not be used. Indeed, the word transwomen appears in none of the RS's providing a definition of she-male. It is Jokestress who is again missing references for her claims.
    • IP 60.53.170.20 is correct also that definitions should go from most to least common. Indeed, that is WP convention.
    • In all the RS's providing definitions, notes about negative connotations are included only in the definitions that refer to transsexuals (or similar term). The definitions refering to mixed anatomical status lack notes about negative connotation.
    • Jokestress is correct, however, that it is considered inappropriate on WP to edit other editors talk-page comments.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the lede till last, then. I propose three (possibly four) sections:

1. Original uses (especially assertive women)
2. Non-human uses (bears, snakes, etc.)
3. LGBT uses (especially sex work/porn use for trans women)

• We could split out its use as a synonym for faggot, etc. into a separate section from the trans usage.

We can discuss the order, though I recommend chronologically. It actually makes sense when you see how the term came to have each meaning over time. I'd also like to see some sourcing for this alleged distinction in how this term is used when describing trans women. It's a slur no matter to whom it is applied. The GLAAD statement was released when "she-male" was used to describe Miriam, who is not "fully transitioned" (to use your term). The journalist who thought that slur was an acceptable term finally got the clue and apologized. Jokestress (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This term is a slur, and the intro needs to explain that while we discuss changes. I have compromised and allowed my proposed edits to be taken down, but I must insist on this reference to remain in the lede while we work out the rest. Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the connotation belongs in the lede...Indeed, I have put it there myself. I disagree with using persuasive instead of descriptive language in so doing, however. Moreover, regarding any connotation, it is not possible (short of a formal analysis) ever to say what the connotation is. All anyone ever can do is describe what various folks opin about it, and people differ on this one. Assertions about what "is" or about "reality" are merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and will not resolve anything.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 60.54.97.17

I reverted much of the changes by User:60.54.97.17 because they were original research. Please discuss proposed changes here, adding reliable sources. Thanks Jokestress (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Jokestress

I reverted much of the changes by User:Jokestress because they were not very neutral and are quite misleading. Please discuss proposed changes here, adding reliable sources. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.6.205 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your changes in the body of the article are fine, but if you want to revise the lede, please cite a reliable source. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be repeated in the lede when they are included in the article. It would be more helpful to interested editors if you are more specific regarding your criticisms.— James Cantor (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 124.82.42.202

I reverted the edits by User:124.82.42.202 because the proposed definitions are original research not backed by a reliable source. Please provide a source regarding the proposed definition. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues with the edits that keep getting added from the Malaysian IPs:

• "fully transitioned": this is an inaccurate and loaded term. It represents a fixation on penises. Many trans women have no intention to get vaginoplasty, so they are "fully transitioned" without it.
• "shemale" does not equal "transsexual woman without vaginoplasty." In the definition that keeps getting inserted, you're making an assertion to that effect. I propose we use this quotation: "The term shemale is used in this setting to denote a fetishized sexual persona and is not typically used by transgendered women outside of sex work. Many transgendered women are offended by this categorization and call themselves T-girls or trans."

Please do not re-insert your definitions without a similar reliable source. Jokestress (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply on Why Keep Adding

'Trans women' (a vague multiple use slang term which should not be used in the 'shemale' article, as it is a loaded term that can describe transvestites, transsexuals or any persons in any stage of transitioning (with or without vaginoplasty) as well as those who have fully transitioned.

Partial transitioning can refer to :

1) breast augmentation 2) testiculation 3) vaginoplasty

Any combination of the above only counts as partial transitioning.

It is only when all 3 are applied that there can be no more transitions which logically means 'full transitioning'. How is "fully transitioned" is inaccurate or loaded then?

Transitioning can only refer to full SRS with vaginoplasty or partial SRS (testiculation) and nothing else. How can you consider a transwoman to be "fully transitioned" without vaginoplasty? Doesn't make sense.

An alternative explanation to clarify your apparent confusion follows in the next paragraph.

She-Male has two word elements which indicate Breast-Penis(Optional with Testicles). Woman-He, She-Man and She-He are clumsy variations which are not used but also all refer to the same thing. But without breast augmentation or presence of penis said person cannot qualify as She-male. Thus by logical progression, 'fully transitioned' (not loaded at all) refers to 'all three elements being completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.41.31 (talk • contribs)

Get Some Help

Your statement about my use of what you perceive as loaded term is based on an unclear understanding of word elements (as deconstructed in the previous paragraph) 'shemale' term is made up of. This could be due to your likely coloured perception from a refusal or inability to acknowledge something which you have turned into a personal crusade to justify your handicap with.

Are you consulting a clinical psychiatrist who has preconceptions of a body image tailored to her understanding of any term that does not fit what you really prefer? If so, you better get a second opinion WITH a copy of this discussion page before you become even more confused (and hopefully not hostile as well?) <JK>. It will likely be helpful to unravel all that knotted up logic you are displaying. YOur floundering about here on WP is starting to be of concern to me and other users too I think. Alternatively, it could be an issue related to a low Linguistics Intelligence Quotient. You could try a proper linguist who could help you understand context and implied use of word elements in relation to this discussion.

Hope you try either or both. And soon. To wrap things up, this article is about the term 'shemale' which is a subset covered by the term 'transwoman'. WP's goal is to clarify what a 'shemale' is to the layperson not force other users to accommodate inadequacies in linguistic perception or logic displayed by any WP contributors. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.41.31 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the IP editor regarding unclear use of vague terms resulting in an obfuscating instead of clarifying WP article, but I would caution against making personal attacks against specific editors.— James Cantor (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE attention by mis-ordering connotation section.

Putting the connotations section first is a bizarre violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDMOS; doing so is an example of an article written to convince readers of a POV (not to use the term) rather than merely to describe the term (however it is used). It makes no sense whatsover for connotations of a term to precede the actual definitions. Moreover, the difference in the quality/reliability of the sources is extreme: The medical/scientific section contains multiple references from the highest-end, peer-reviewed scholarly RS's in print (such as the journal Nature) whereas the connotation section is a collection of personal opinions expressed by individuals in fields not of their own expertise. As I said previously, the connotations are relevant, but must be used solely descriptively for readers, not pursuasively such as by pride of place.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If the lede is only containing one use, the connotation should be next to that use. One can just as easily claim your clear attempts to downplay the reality of how this term is used are a POV move to align this article with the views of your friends. Jokestress (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not been reading my edits thoroughly or are confusing me with the IP editor. I have indeed included, and re-included (I may be up to three times now) the connotations in the lede. My objection has been, and remains, to state that connotation as fact rather than as opinion when there is no RS to justify it.— James Cantor (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violations by expressing sources' opinions as facts.

There does not exist any source capable of justifying statement about what "nearly all" transsexuals think nor what "most" transsexuals think. Individuals authors (writing outside their expertise) may certainly have their opinion, and such opinions (when coming from bone fide experts) indeed merit mention. As I have expressed several times, however, such opinions cannot be written as if they were facts. Consensus regarding an NPOV description of connotations should be achieved before re-adding it to the lede. I propose this text:

The term is innaccurate and has been called derogatory when applied to transsexuals who have completed sex reassignment surgery.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, then we need to name and describe the "experts" who are under the impression this is value-neutral language. The term is derogatory when used for any transsexual woman. This notion that it is acceptable to call anyone this term needs to be backed up with a secondary source. Jokestress (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. What we need is to stick to WP style. Whom you deem an expert (with or without passive-aggressive scare quotes) and what you declare as is are both irrelevant. WP guidelines are very clear on these points, and the contents of high-end, peer-reviewed journals are preferrable to opinions expressed in low end docs lacking editorial review.— James Cantor (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Olsson reference

I don't see any use of "she-male" in the text of the Olsson paper referenced in the article: Olsson, S.-E., & Möller, A. (2006). Regret after sex reassignment surgery in a male-to-female transsexual: A long-term follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 501-506. I have removed it since we have other better sources for the same thing. Jokestress (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The term appears on page 505, column 2, line 27.— James Cantor (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. It doesn't appear in the body of the paper. Jokestress (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the body of the paper. Olsson and Möller are clearly acknowledging the use of the term as it appeared previously (in Blanchard, 1993). I suggest you post the question to a relevant noticeboard for input from non-involved editors.

Moreover, your use of "other better sources for the same thing" appears inconsistent to the point of hypocritical. Removing sources in favor of "better" sources when you disagree with them, but leaving (and adding more) sources despite the existence of "better" ones when you agree with them will not convince uninvolved editors of your NPOV.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing someone else's paper title does not mean they are using the term in a sentence in their own paper. Right? Jokestress (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone else's paper title? You sound as if you are confusing the relevant text of the article in the body (p. 505) with the reference section (p. 506). Olsson and Möller described the concept, provided readers with the term for that concept, and provided readers with the reference for their use of the term. The RS is strongly valid and should be re-instated.— James Cantor (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They are simply repeating Blanchard's terminology: "Her ideal condition, confirmed from the medical records and at follow-up, is living as a female, feminized by hormones, but with male genitals, ie, she-male status (Blanchard 1993)." I don't think that really adds much. Jokestress (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You make my point for me. A scientist using the terminology as used by another published scientist is exactly how to show the acceptance of the term by topic experts. To remove "repeats" in the section you don't like and to leave them (and even enhance) the same "repeats" in the section you do like is about as obvious evidence of a failure of WP:NPOV as can be had.— James Cantor (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have reinstated the Olsson ref.
• I have also reinstated the Dixon ref which user:Jokestress also removed for the definition of the term (and somehow neglected to mention when saying she removed the Olsson ref).
• I have posed to RS/N whether the given refs are sufficient to justify claims about what "most transwomen" think rather than convey the opinion of the authors.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Some biologists" as a failure of NPOV.

It is a failure of WP:NPOV to treat a field's use of a term as an individual's use of a term. Activists may prefer a field use another term, of course, but such changes in tone/text are merely POV attempts to discredit what one doesn't like...and it's not even a particularly graceful attempt.— James Cantor (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Most biologists use different terms. Further, some biologists have noted that the term as used by some biologists is problematic and explained why they don't use it. I recommend that you calm down a bit and try to work out as much of this as we can here before escalating to third parties. Jokestress (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's perfectly fine that other biologists use other terms. This article is about this term.
• A biologist is perfectly free to give her opinion. I contest only citing opinions as facts.
• Given the circular edits already going on for several days now, seeking the opinion of non-involved editors is exactly the appropriate thing to do. Your hesitation in seeking out the uninvolved is best interpreted by others.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Transwoman' term, use of transsexual and shemale only

I am using more accurate terms than 'transwomen' which User:Jokestress seems to prefer somehow. I am removing the term because the term is not very clear and suggest that ambiguous terms like 'transwomen' be no longer used for the 'shemale' article as the 'shemale' article should be about making clear the differences between shemales and transsexuals, which mainly lie in the presence of male genitalia. Transwoman obfuscates the distinctions. Thanks.60.49.44.11 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is not encyclopedic to define a term using even more vague, slang terms. Indeed, it is the use of exact and explicit definitions that makes the scientific/medical sources superior sources, and it is the use of ambiguous terms that makes low-level sources ripe for abuse by individual editors' POVs.— James Cantor (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Trans women" is used in reliable sources, we have an article on the term, and it can be used while still explaining how this term is used without causing any confusion. This mythical distinction between "shemale" and "transsexual" is not reflected in how the term "shemale" is used in reliable sources. You are both making assumptions that the way you use the term in relation to sex work is the only way the term is used. It has been used since Janice Raymond's book to describe any trans woman. The article needs to reflect all uses and connotations, giving appropriate weight to each. Any changes need to reflect a reliable source, or else we are into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Jokestress (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 60.49.44.11

I just reverted all edits by User:60.49.44.11. Those edits removed one-third of the reliable sources. Please do not remove sourced material without discussing it here first. Jokestress (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Jokestress

I just reverted all edits by User:Jokestress. Reliable sources cited only qualify as original research. Please do not add sourced material without discussing it here first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.46.122 (talk • contribs)

If you continue to be disruptive, I am going to take steps to have the article protected. If you'd like to discuss changes, please do so here. Jokestress (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You are being disruptive, and I too am going to take steps to have the article protected and inform all the necessary contacts I have access to about this un-WP-like article being coloured by your perception. If you'd like to discuss changes, please do so here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.46.122 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

comment:protection will mean you won't be able to edit, jokestress will. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Then they should rename Wikipedia as Jokestress-Pedia then. I'm going to try to put a stop to this (i.e. get Jokestress and CardinalDan's accounts suspended) via the official route instead. Wish me luck!