Talk:Trans woman

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Contradicts the articles "woman" and "female"

(This issue is closely related to the issue raised in the previous section.)

The intro paragraph says that a "trans woman" is a type of woman. That article in turn says that women are female. That article in turn defines female as, well, the common biological definition. But trans women are not female according to that definition, leading to an internal contradiction. Wikipedia could change its definition of "female" from the biological definition (which would be very strange and need some major sourcing I guess), or change the article "woman" to not define women as female people (again quite strange as that's the definition you'll find in any dictionary, encyclopedia, and from any person you ask on the street), or clarify in this article that the issue of whether "trans women" are or aren't actually women is a point of political debate.

As it stands, Wikipedia simply contradicts itself / implicitly makes the false claim that trans women have female sex. TaylanUB (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The intro for woman includes that the term is also used to refer to a person's gender identity. Does that not resolve the contradiction? JB525 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that part. I guess it could solve the contradition, though it's kind of unclear what it means to say. A wording like "some people may also be considered women because of their gender identity" would be clearer, though that's a change to that article and I'll discuss it there. As far as this article goes, it may be useful to mention in the intro that this alternative definition of woman applies, because if one simply follows the initial parts of the intros one would be led to believe that trans women are female. :-) TaylanUB (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also: it may be better not to state that trans women are women, but that they are considered to be women by some people, based on gender identity or social presentation. (Also see: the recommendation I just made in the talk page of the Woman article.) TaylanUB (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems the woman article isn't going to be changed. But there was some agreement during the relevant discussion that the current intro of that article doesn't say that trans women are a type of woman. In line with this, the current intro should be changed so as not to imply that trans women are female or otherwise confuse readers. TaylanUB (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a few suggestions. The parenthesis mentioning alternative spellings that exists in the original is removed for brevity; it would be added back if one of these is adopted.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but professes a female gender identity.

A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman, without being female.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but is accepted as a woman by some members of society because of her professed gender identity or social presentation.

A trans woman is a person who is accepted as a woman by some members of society because of her professed gender identity or social presentation, despite not being female.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but is accepted as a woman by some members of society.

A trans woman is a person who is accepted as a woman by some members of society, despite not being female.

Just say "A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman but who was assigned male at birth." That's totally neutral, it doesn't say that she is or isn't a woman in some objective sense, it just says accurately that she identifies as a woman. All the other attempts above try to assert that she is not a woman compared to the current version that says she is a woman. My suggestion is neutral. It avoids the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.113.110 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"assigned" is not neutral, and on any less touchy subject, would be considered a weasel word. It's a persuasive spin word. "A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman but who was born biologically not female." would be accurate and neutral. 172.76.140.54 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) DD

That's all I've got for now. Note how there's three basic variations, each with a pair of sub-variants that put the "not female" part first, and last, respectively. (I thought it may be more kind to put that at the end so as not to emphasize it first, so added such a sub-variant to all basic variants.) I personally like the first variant for its simplicity, though it may not represent all trans women, as I believe some don't define their trans identity on the notion of gender identity. The third option is an attempt at fixing that, but maybe it's too long? The fifth option is a different simplistic approach that I just came up with; not sure how good. Feel free to recommend more. TaylanUB (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice: I've just noticed that this page is "semi-protected" rather than fully protected (I'm a relative Wikipedia noob...) so I can just edit the article myself after all. Still, as I've started the discussion, I'll wait a bit if there's any feedback before I make a change, so there isn't too much back-and-forth editing if somebody disagrees with my choice. TaylanUB (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please realize how rude it is to say trans women are not female. It uses the point of view that transgenderism is just playing make believe. Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Why should it be considered “rude” to point out the hard, scientific truth?  Why should any sane person feel compelled to play along with an insane falsehood, and to treat that falsehood as truth, on the basis that adhering to the truth would be considered “rude&rdqquo;?  As a matter of hard, scientific fact, a “trans woman” is male, and is not, in any meaningful way, female.  No amount of chemical or surgical mutilation can change this, and neither can any amount of politically-correct shaming and intimidation aimed at those who prefer to give greater credence to hard science than to the insane delusions of those who are mentally-defective. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Bob, your comments contradict all recent medical, scientific and legal scholarship. Do you have 21st century citations to back up your claims, or are they all anally sourced? Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see the article female. It's a biological classification, and trans women by definition don't fall under it. Why is it be rude to point this out? TaylanUB (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand gender identity. It's important to avoid looking at transgenderism the easy way. Please do research to understand exactly what it is; it's a serious birth condition. The statement that trans women are not biologically female, taken literally, implies that transgenderism doesn't exist biologically. Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have 1) any reliable sources for the claim that all or most of transgender women and men share (group wise; one for trans women one for trans men) an inborn biological condition that invariably (without the effect of society) leads to the development of their transgender identity, and 2) any reliable sources offering a definition of female and male that includes said pair of inborn conditions in those definitions? Because from what I can tell, there is neither a scientific conclusion on the cause of transgender identity, nor would it be automatically included in the definition of "female" and "male" if it did, as these are so far defined through genetics, reproductive anatomy and not for instance any aspect of a person's neurology. TaylanUB (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Somebody besides me and TaylanUB, please reveal your opinions on this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS. We have WP:OR about one person's views on gender, sex, and the intersection thereof. I have little interest in engaging. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(de-indent) Apparently the female article is pretty much unsourced, which I only notice now. It's not difficult to at least find online dictionary sources for the given definition though. (I'd dig up an encyclopedia or biology textbook, but I'm in Germany so won't be able to find English sources easily.) As a bare minimum, I just added a citation to the initial definition of female, using the online version of the Oxford dictionary. So, given there are verifiable definitions of "female" that exclude trans women, and assuming there are none that include them, I think it should be safe to state that trans women aren't female? TaylanUB (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated those assumptions are reasonable. Moreover, we are not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). We don't define or discuss topics based on the OED. Additionally, the term female is contested more generally; some argue it should be used only in terms of biological sex, but common parlance and other sources use it interchangeably with woman and to refer to gender. (See Sex-gender distinction) Provide some sources for your broad statements please. I can tell you that the most recent social science literature doesn't discuss trans women in terms of "biologically male but gender as a woman" but rather as an assigned-male at birth person who is a woman. The focus now is about sex assignment and transgender people are those who do not identify with that assigned gender/sex. ([1], [2], [3], [4]) EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Assigned" ? Nature and chromosomes assigned a penis to the individual. There is such a thing as biological sex. This article should not taking a position that confuses biological sex with psychologically identified gender. 172.76.140.54 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) DD

Well, that's the most nonsensical argument I've seen yet on this page (and there have been a few). If nature (let's say, in the form of an attacking hyena) unassigned a penis to an individual, would their sex have changed? If a congenital condition didn't assign them one in the first place, are they necessarily not male? Anatomical features do not necessarily correspond to a person's sex or gender, and the distinction you're drawing between "biological sex" and "psychologically identified gender" (got a reliable source for that term, btw?) is not nearly as clear-cut as you might think it is.

Look, I get that some of what you're reading in this article and elsewhere may be new and confusing; there's a learning curve involved, and old misconceptions die hard. My own understanding of the topic of gender has evolved significantly since my "knowledge" about it was first challenged in a university course many years ago. It would be really helpful if people wouldn't keep showing up here presenting nuggets of received wisdom and proclaiming them to be irrefutably true. I agree with EvergreenFir; this is becomimg tendentious. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious indeed. Those arguing in favor of including wording specifically asserting that trans-women "are not physically women but identify as women psychologically" seem to have forgotten the fact that the brain, and all of its processes are also biological. To argue using Biological Determinism - saying a trans-woman is not a woman because her body possesses biologically male genitalia and that's BIOLOGY is to paint oneself into a corner. She feels female. She knows herself to be female. And a feeling/knowing are just as much biological processes as anything genitals can do. She has, it would seem, a biologically female brain. Why does genitalia trump the brain as the arbiter of gender in the minds of the "Not Female" crowd? I'm going to use the first of two thought experiments to drive home my point. Imagine: If brain transplants were possible, and you took the brain of a cisgender woman whose body had been crushed and popped it into the head of a body with male primary and secondary sex organs, would she suddenly be a "biological" man. Perhaps to an absurdly strict dualist, but I think common sense, science, and everyone who knew her, would tell us she was a woman who had ended up in a man's body. For comparison, what about taking the brain of a tall man and putting it in the body of a shorter man. Is he a tall man in a short man's body? No. He's short. Because height, unlike gender, is not determined primarily by the brain. A bit extreme as a thought excercise, but worth considering if you don't believe the brain a sexual organ powerfully relating to gender.

Also,as has been pointed out over and over, these same interlocutors confuse and conflate sex and gender in almost every post.

Lastly, and I promise after this I'm done. Don't buy the brain as arbiter of gender? Let's play another game: The assertion has been thrown around that gender is not assigned at birth, but inherent and based on genetalia. What if a baby girl was born, had typical healthy female sex organs, was raised until she could feed herself from the absurdly plentiful and nearby food sources, and then her village died. As she grows, what does she become? Female? Certainly she has the genitalia and eventually the secondary sex characteristics of a female. But a woman? A "girl" as the birth records would have it? Absolutely not. With no one to teach her gendered behavior, i.e. ASSIGN HER A GENDER, she wouldn't have the slightest conception of womanhood.

So, the genitals are biological, the brain is just a leak that lets the feminists get in? Well that sounds silly. Take out a woman's brain & she remains a woman. Guess it's biology. I know! It must be that a woman's labiae or possibly her Fallopian tubes teach her to wear certain clothing, prefer certain activities, and accept being talked over at work. Why, that feral girl? She'll be June Cleaver when she grows up! Oh, or wait, not June Cleaver, a wild un-gendered human who only thinks about survival, and doesn't dream of Prince Charming because she doesn't know what a man is just like she doesn't know what a woman is. And so there you have it. Gender is assigned at birth. That cleft that will someday become a vagina? Those lumps of inert tissue that will, years hence, make this baby capable of child-bearing? They make her a "girl" the way putting her in a lil baby-tutu makes her an Olympic figure skater. She's more likely to end up skating if you buy her the equipment. And she's more likely to end up a woman if she's born with the reproductive necessities. The genitals are predictive, not prescriptive. Resorting to "but biology" ignores, well, biology. Not to mention the basic psychological fact that all behaviors are learned and without women as roll models, feral girl from thought experiment two is straight up not going to invent and then insist on wearing kitten heels...at least until it's time for wedge sandals! Great for fending off ocelots while still showing some leg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klonopin Fox (talk • contribs) 14:19, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

The determinant of biological sex is the possession of a male or female reproductive system that produces male or female gametes. Take a look at Wikipedia's own page on 'Female', for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female): "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)." Trans women do not have a female reproductive system--one that produces eggs--nor have they ever had one, so there is no basis at all for describing them as female. Subjective belief or feeling does not determine sex, no more than subjective belief about ethnicity can actually change your ancestral background, which is a matter of unchangeable historical fact. This is elementary biology; the brain no more determines sex than the spleen or liver does. 45.48.238.252 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Milestones section

The section Milestones in transgender activism and visibility has some issues.

First, the relevance of the section to the article: there are other articles where this section as currently constituted might fit better, such as at the Transgender article, or, since every subsection in this section currently concerns U.S. people and events, perhaps History of transgender people in the United States. Or as some of them concern the wider LGBT and not just trans* people, perhaps at LGBT history in the United States.

With a section title change, some of this material could be kept Since this is the Trans woman article, if it were something like "Milestones in activism and visibility of trans women" would be relevant and on-topic for the article, although I find that wording rather awkward, and hopefully something better could be found. We could keep the stuff about Christine Jorgensen, mention the crucial role transwomen played at Stonewall. The sections on Pride, and Minnesota discrimination laws are not specifically about transwomen, and would fit better in a "Milestones" section in a Transgender article.

In addition, all of the five subsections are extensively covered in other articles, so all that would be needed here, is a brief summary section, with the use of Wikilinks or {{Main}} template links to the principal articles concerned. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding for the record: these edits appear to be related to classwork being performed in connection with a college class; see Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Loyola Marymount University/Gender, Race, and Sexuality in Contemporary Society Sections 4 and 5 (Spring 2017) for details. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've recast the list as a definition list for now, rather than keep a whole series of short subsections, which have main articles elsewhere. Let's see how this works. Also, the items in the list are kind of arbitrary. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No activity on this section in many months. I've removed the former Milestones section from the article and copied it here:

Copy of the "Milestones" section from version 824779914 of the article.

Milestones 1930 – Lili Elbe In Germany in 1930, Elbe underwent the first known sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). 1952 – Christine Jorgensen Jorgensen, a former G.I., was the first American to have SRS that was widely publicized. Her treatment and surgery took place in Denmark. 1969 – Stonewall riots A series of riots following the police raid of the Stonewall Inn, a gay night club in New York City on the morning of June 28, 1969. The riots lasted for three days. The Stonewall riots are widely considered to be the event that sparked the gay liberation movement. 1970 – Pride Parade A major event in the LGBT movement, and was inspired by the Stonewall Riots. The first parade was organized by the Chicago Gay Liberation and took place on June 27, 1970 in Chicago. In the following few days, other cities including San Francisco, Boston, Hollywood and New York had marches of their own. 1975 – first U.S. gender identity legislation Minneapolis became the first city in the United States to ban discrimination based on gender identity in 1975. In addition, Minnesota became first state to ban discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in 1993, based on the Human Rights Act. 1977 – Renée Richards U.S. tennis player who played as a male in the 1970s, underwent SRS in 1975, and returned to the circuit playing as a woman after a landmark court case in 1977. 1998 – Transgender Day of Remembrance A date memorializing individuals killed in transphobic acts of violence. Transgender Day of Remembrance was started by transgender activist Gwendolyn Ann Smith in 1999 after the murder of transgender woman Rita Hester on November 28, 1998. The day is celebrated annually on November 20, as part of Transgender Awareness Week. This was one of the first major social movements to promote transgender visibility. References

Please propose any changes here, but it looks to me that this might work better at Transgender history, if anywhere. Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I'm sure this a contentious topic but I don't see how the phrase "assigned male" can possibly be NPOV enough to make it into the first sentence of the article. Male is a sex. People are born male as a matter of (NPOV) fact. Trans women were born male. Assigned is clearly a loaded term and in any case only really works with masculinity/manhood, not male-ness. 79.79.252.177 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The article's wording is consistent with that of reliable sources. You offer no sources for any of the claims you make. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello I would like to help with this

I am a transwoman who is currently going thru transition to female (full surgery). I would love to be able to add my knowledge and experience to this. I'm one of many who only identify as trans until I have SRS surgery then I will go as cis female. I am also pansexual and polysexual. I can speak to these as well as per my experience and I will also research grounded knowledge and sources so that any and all information I add to this or any other pages pertaining to this subject matter will be accurate and founded in true and accurate science and accountings. Please allow me this (I will also be make sure my grammar is proper) I am a math and science geek. Jessica Hart (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Hart, welcome to Wikipedia! I wish you all the best in your transition, and look forward to your contributions here. Naturally you are free to edit articles of your choice. One note of caution, however: while each editor's background informs her/his participation, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prevail. In particular, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Regardless of what you may know from personal experience, every edit must be supported by a reliable and verifiable source. As for grammar, I think you'll find our editorial community forgiving and helpful. We all enjoy polishing each other's writing, with the goal to make Wikipedia both informative and readable. If you understand that this is a collective and collaborative project, you'll fit right in. KalHolmann (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Hart, in addition to what KalHolmann stated, do see WP:MEDRS when it comes to sourcing medical content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree and understand, I am currently looking through tutorials of how to edit. I wasn't trying to post my opinion I am strictly a factual and evidence based girl. I want to be on this topic because it is close to home and I have been recording the steps needed to go through transition. Due to the fact there isn't a reliable source on the matter to be honest. I want to help future trans ppl if I can. Everything I contribute will be backed by true and medical documentation when applicable, and with reputable sources when published works are not available. I won't be working on this until I have learned the way to edit and HTML code like everyone else. I'm very thorough and methodical when I attempt anything. Thank you so much for your kind words. Jessica Hart (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Jessica. Agree with previous replies, and wanted to add one more bit of advice: this is a difficult topic area for a new editor to gain their footing. Certain topic areas at WP are considered contentious and have special rules pertaining to article changes, and any article related to gender is firmly in that category. Any changes you make here will be scrutinized much more carefully, than would changes to Medieval basket-weaving, and almost anything you say will run up against some editors who disagree, and who won't hesitate to tell you so, or to simply undo your edits. You might consider starting off with some edits in another topic area you enjoy (you don't have to have any special knowledge of something to contribute), and see how that goes, first. If you're determined to contribute to this article, then please step carefully, read WP:ACDS, follow the guidelines on verifiability, neutral PoV, and reliable sources (including MEDRS), and consider discussing your changes here on the the talk page first and making an edit request, before adding them to the article directly. Hope this helps, and welcome! Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Influential trans women

This section partially duplicates material at the longer list contained in the article List of trans women (currently a redirect to List of transgender people). There's also the problem of who merits inclusion here under the rubric "Influential". Perhaps one could simply change the section title to "Notable transwomen" and use the notability standard, which seems to be what the section is doing now, as everyone currently in the list is blue-linked. Perhaps there should be a merge of this section to the List article. Mathglot (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No response, so I've changed the section title to "Notable trans women". Still wondering what people think about a merge to the List article. Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is messy and needs tweaking

Can someone please fix this? 2001:569:7671:F100:1C5E:CEE0:2255:5A1E (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd be happy to. What exactly would you like to see changed? Mathglot (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a neutral article

How about some discussion of the chromosome status of the overwhelming majority of trans women? Or is too offensive to point such things out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.179.143 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Does any peer-reviewed research exist on the chromosone status of Trans women? I am not aware of any. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe it's fairly well known that transwomen are born male and that current technology does not change chromosomes or the reproductive system of the person. Medically, they could be seen as landing between male and female, a bit like intersex people. Currently, the article begins by stating that they are women, which would imply that they are female. The same problem exists in the trans man page. Wikipedia is flatly contradicting itself.

How about: A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth, who professes a female gender identity. Taylan (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How is that related to what OP asked and not just rehashing the same issue presented on DRN? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have missed Taylan's reply to my comment, which did not respond to my actual point. I was asking, for example, whether trans women were more likely to be xxy or xyy or intersex xx people rather than xy? Is there any actual data? To assume that Trans women represent the same range of chromosomes as cis men because they are born (or assigned) "male" seems to me to be begging the question. We are in a historical period where lay people assert chromosomes as a defining characteristic (and elevated substitute for anatomy) without looking at the evidence about actual chromosomes. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed a section

In the sexual orientation section, I removed the unsourced NPOV paragraph, as well as the quote, the citation was based on Deirdre's memoir which is not NPOV, and of questionable value, or relevance, also whoever wrote it in didn't actually cite that it was Deirdre's memoir, I had to visit the archived citation, which seems like a sketchy way of getting around just putting in an opinion. Also, personally I think that the overview of trans terminology is irrelevant to trans women specifically, and probably should be removed, as it belongs in a page about trans terminology, or trans people in general, but I won't remove anything that is legitimately sourced, unless there is conscious. ShimonChai (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I removed a few other things that weren't related specifically to trans women, a sentence about trans men, and a few paragraphs that were unsourced in the terminology section, as they have nothing to do with trans women specifically. Finally, I removed a conclusion sentence in the "transwomen" definition under the terminology section. Furthermore, regarding future changes it would be nice to see this page actually go more in depth on MTF transitioning rather than just focusing on social issues relating to MTF women. ShimonChai (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead section, one more time

This talk page contains numerous former discussions about the wording stating trans women are women, but none of those discussions seem to have been fruitful. Ultimately the lead section remained in direct contradiction with the Wikipedia pages woman and female and supported a specific political position in a contemporary debate.

I've been a bit bolder this time and went forth to change its wording to be more neutral. If you see any problem with the wording I've switched to, please try to explain clearly and in detail so we can have a fruitful discussion about it and settle with a wording that's neutral, non-contradicting, and palatable to people on either side of the debate. Taylan (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

TaylanUB, do you really think that trans women are not women?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. However, the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are supposed to be irrelevant, no? Taylan (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are violating that principle, since your opinions are showing in your edits. Also, per BRD, please don't edit ear after your B and during the Day phase. To do so is both unbecoming and against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, but you're violating WP:AGF by assuming that I want the article to represent my opinion rather than a neutral position. Taylan (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I read your edits, thought they reflected a POV but didn't say anything about it, then commented when you disclosed your POV. That procedure is well within AGF, and might even be helpful since you seem blind to the ways your intended "neutral" language is not actually neutral (which has been a problem for other editors in previous rounds of this discussion). Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how "AMAB person who identifies as a woman" is not neutral. Taylan (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Typically other Wikipedia articles are not suitable sources for wikipedia, though I do see that the definition even on wikipedia the woman article does include trans women. Rab V (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the last sentence of the lead of the woman article. It says that with regard to gender, woman may refer to a transwoman. I.e. it's provided as an alternative definition, which is fine. If the lead section of this article will be using that definition, it would correspondingly need to make that clear. For example: "a trans woman is a person who is a woman in terms of gender self-identification although they were assigned male at birth." (Not a sentence I would actually propose to use in the article, as it's awkward.) Taylan (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To me "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth" is far more neutral than "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman". The latter comes across as 'they think they are women but aren't really", which could be viewed as discriminatory. --John B123 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

TaylanUB, there is a whole discussion in Woman about how the term, as a gender, covers people who are assigned female gender but identify as male. I have no idea why editors arrive at "Trans woman" and "Trans man" - which are clearly articles about gender identities - and try to impose chromosomally- or anotomically-determined sex definitions on them. That represents literally the worst kind of POV OR. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to my point. The definition of "woman" that covers trans women is an alternative one belonging to an ideological position. Taylan (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion, Taylan, would be that the reason that you are having so much difficulty discussing this topic is because you see the gender identity definition of "woman" as "alternative" to the one based on anatomy and/or chromosomes. This position of yours is not at all irrelevant, since it determines what you see as "neutral" and what you see as "ideological". I dare say that the perspective from which, in an article about a gender identity, the relevant definition of woman is as a gender identity is the mainstream position in this context, while the position that identity language should be dictated from anatomy and/or chromosomes is FRINGE in 2018, and if reflected in this article, should not be present in the Lede but in another section like "Exclusion of Trans women from acceptance as women" which could cover restroom laws, etc. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "woman" pro-transgender movement editors use is clearly an alternative one to the main one, as seen on the woman page and on most English dictionaries. The idea that transwomen are not literally women is far from fringe, as most socially conservative people and also many socially liberal people, especially feminists, see it as a rather ludicrous notion. Currently, dictionaries even include transwomen under their definition of "man" since "woman" and "man" are mainly defined in reference to biology. I think your deeply held ideological beliefs might be clouding your judgment here. But all of that aside, let me reiterate: none of the citations from what I can see support the current wording in the article. Taylan (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the wording in the article lede is supported directly by the eighth source (last time I looked), and follows correctly the WP procedure of providing detail and evidence in the article and summarizing in the led (rather than edit warring in the Lede as you have repeatedly chosen to do).

Second, from an examination of your contribution to other topics it seems that you understand the distinction between gender and biological sex. Your repeated attempts to edit this article -which explicitly concerns a gender identity- so that it conforms your personal opinions about the relationship between gender and anatomy is inexplicable to me, but on any event falls within the realm of POV, whereas the article should be based on sources.

It is increasingly true that in Canada, the UK, the US and other countries a minority of Trans women are legally recognized as Women and a larger set of Trans women are socially recognized as Women. That closure of the RfC on MOS: GENDERID, no matter how "ludicrous" it seems to you, is binding and was intended to end misgendering and deadnaming in WP articles; your repeated edits do, in fact, communicate your conviction that Trans women are not women and therefore violate GENDERID in both spirit and letter. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You seem to be confused on several points. Firstly, the common definitions of "woman" and "man" are based on sex, not gender, as seen in most English dictionaries; they explicitly refer to the terms "female" and "male" which in turn tend to be defined in terms of reproductive function. As such, any ideas you have about my supposed belief in a relationship between gender and anatomy is gravely mistaken. If you are so interested in my personal opinions, allow me to give a short summary (I realize this is not a forum): women and men are female and male humans respectively (sex), who are oppressively forced into feminine and masculine social roles (gender). The idea that "woman" and "man" are social constructs is merely the post-modernist phrasing of this same idea, usually just making it more difficult to understand and leading people astray into philosophical masturbation. End of digression.

Secondly, your reference to Canada, UK, US etc. laws is highly centered on 21st century western(ized) countries; it is very far from being global. As for your reference to "social recognition," that is not only western-centric but also simply wrong. I was going to say "questionable" but then I googled it and found out that as of 2017, 54% of the US population is of the opinion that whether a person is a woman or a man is determined by their sex. (It is even 34% among Democrats and 49% among millennials, which is almost shocking to me to be honest.)

Thirdly, regarding MOS:GENDERID, this seems to be yet another misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules. (People are throwing these at me all the time.) MOS:GENDERID is concerned with how individual persons are referred to. It is not a statement about Wikipedia's position on the gender debate; Wikipedia would not take such a position, and thankfully indeed does not seem to. This article stating that transwomen are AMAB people who identify as women, rather than expressly stating that they are women, would not be a breach of MOS:GENDERID at all.

Finally, regarding the 8th citation, it's a work by a transgender philosopher. It is highly questionable how much its contents correlate with public understanding of gender, identity, and society. It's noteworthy that in the parts of the article using this citation, there is merely an explanation of the perspectives offered by the book. So the body of the Wikipedia article (correctly) does not take the contents of the book as fact, but rather position.

To summarize: whether transwomen are women is not settled in public opinion, science, or anywhere else. None of the citations justify the lead section taking a position on this question. No Wikipedia rules mandate the article taking a position on this question. A straightforward NPOV wording would be "AMAB person who identifies as a woman" and no proper reason was so far given as to why this wording should not be used; neither were alternatives offered. The current wording is POV and clearly unacceptable, as it contradicts English dictionaries and widespread public opinion, without having any justification to do so. Taylan (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, on the first point you raise, this is (and presents itself as) an article about a gender identity. It stated that Trans women are women in the sense that applies in this context, which is not that of sex (anatomical or chromosomal) but of gender identity. There is simply no usage in English that identifies "woman" as a sex rather than a gender identity; as you point out there has been a traditional usage in English that distinguishes between female sex and feminine gender, but this usage is (1) in decline and (2) not used in the present article AFAIK, nor should it me IMO. Dictionaries, to which you appeal, recognize "woman" both as a sex and as a gender category, as does the WP article to which you have also appealed. Your claim that "woman" means sex rather than gender is OR, is not supported by literature, and frankly runs contrary to the use of the term in jurisprudence, media, and for example in MOS:GENDERID. Your claim that the use of "woman" for a gender is a postmodernist one is also OR and is factually incorrect.

If the point of your second paragraph is that the belief in anatomically-reductionist understandings of gender identity is widespread, and that this should be recognized and discussed in the article, I agree, just as I have pointed out that anatomically based or sex-assignment-based bathroom laws should be acknowledged and discussed. But public opinion simply does not take the place of what reliable sources have to say on the subject, in this case, the large body of law, policy and scholarship that establishes that Trans women are women.

Your dismissal of a reliable, published source as being the work of a "transgender philosopher" is bizarre and irrelevant. If you believe that there is scholarship of similar merit supporting the exclusion of Trans women from the category "women" you are invited to present it here, but so far you have not done so. SOURCESEXIST is not an argument.

Finally, "woman" as a designation of a gender is present in dictionaries and other authorities; your allegation that the current Lede "contradicts the dictionary" is unsupported by evidence and, frankly, bizarre. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't need to detail how my personal views don't conform to Wikipedia rules, as I added them for your clarification and not as a suggestion for the article... You suggest that the point of my second paragraph is something about "the belief in anatomically-reductionist understandings of gender identity." No, we do not know what prompted the questioned population to say that a woman is defined by birth sex. It could have been a simple linguistic reason like mine (i.e. "woman" is simply *defined* as "adult female human") or it could have been a conservative/sexist belief (e.g. all female-born people have a feminine personal essence which defines them as women). We do not know that, as the poll didn't ask for such details. All we know is that "transwomen are women" goes against majority public view. As such, it cannot be claimed as a fact on Wikipedia unless there is e.g. a scientifically or otherwise objectively/authoritatively sourced justification. You say that dictionaries etc. include the gender identity-based definition of "woman", but such definitions are secondary or tertiary even when offered in certain dictionaries. Besides, given this is a very recent change to language which in part contradicts up-to-recent use, it would be better for Wikipedia to avoid relying on it in the first sentence of an article, even if most or all dictionaries were updated to include it. (They aren't.) My summary above stands. I see no justification being provided in this whole discussion as to why "AMAB person who identifies as a woman" should not be used, or as to how "trans women are women..." is an acceptable phrasing to start the article with. The former wording is impartial; the latter a POV or at best based on a neologism of sorts. (I.e. the word "woman" isn't new but the gender identity-based definition of it is.) Taylan (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I have responded to your personal views because the edits that you have been proposing appear "neutral" to you because of your personal views. Were it not for your personal convictions, it would not make sense to you to edit a WP article about a gender identity by appealing to definitions based in anatomical sex, just as it does not make sense to anyone that doesn't share your personal, FRINGE convictions. Something like one third of US citizens believe in "young earth" creationism, but WP's articles on evolution aren't written to be neutral between the two perspectives, nor should they be.

Anyway, the key point you haven't seemed to grasp is that WP processes are based on consensus, and you haven't come close to offering policy support or evidence for your proposals beyond poll results, dictionary entries, and other WP articles, none of which is more than tangentially relevant IMO. Shifting consensus so that your edits would be accepted would require a more serious effort. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That my personal views affect my perception of what is neutral wording is your personal opinion. :-) I rather see your and others' bias preventing you from realizing how strongly POV the current wording is: it doesn't even seem to bother you that it goes against the view of more than half the US population, and is not scientifically or otherwise authoritatively sourced either, which would have justified it like it does on topics such as evolution. As such, your comparison to creationism for instance is false.

I don't care if a group of biased WP editors come to a biased consensus among themselves; if they go against Wikipedia policy, which you people do, I will keep insisting on fixing the article to make it conformant; in this case to WP:NPOV. The current wording 1) goes against public view, 2) has no justification through scientific or other authoritative RS citations. The fact that you still think it's acceptable wording only tells me how strongly biased you are. Taylan (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Have fun with that. Just realize that you have to actually convince others of a different consensus: editing against consensus is not going to produce the desired result. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well at least you admit that you're using consensus to insert POV-wording, I guess? Anyway, I've explained in detail how the current wording is POV; if explanations of why my reasoning is wrong aren't provided within a sensible time-frame, I'll take it as silent agreement. Taylan (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, such an action would likely result in an ANI or AE filing as disruptive, pov-pushing, IDHT, and tendentious. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me what's the "correct" action to take when a group of biased editors exert mob-rule over an article to retain content that violates Wikipedia policy. I'd much rather avoid the annoying bureaucracy, but if you're so insistant on keeping POV wording, there might be no way around it I suppose. Taylan (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Taylan, I am certainly not "admitting" anything of the kind. Such a reading of my replies does not AGF, particularly as I have gone to some lengths to explain how the current language is neutral, sourced, and policy-based. Your position, if nothing else, is very ICANTHEARYOU and I suspect we are getting to SEALION territory. If in future you mistake the silence of exhausted interlocutors for consensus, you will simply be reverted. As I say, good luck. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You've used your subjective ideas to argue these things; I've refuted them with reference to facts, such as: 1) the citations don't support the wording (the only one you've explicitly claimed to support the wording is a book by a trans philosopher outlying their perspective), 2) the wording contradicts primary definitions of the words woman/female in most English dictionaries, and 3) the wording contradicts majority public view. I've looked around a little and it looks like the ANI/NPOV noticeboard might be the right place to bring administrator attention to this article... I will wait a little longer before trying to take such a pitiful route to dispute resolution. On the meanwhile, please feel free to try 1) offering authoritative reliable sources that support the wording, 2) explaining how it's justified to contradict the primary definition of "woman" at the absence of #1, 3) explaining how it's justified to contradict majority public opinion at the absence of #1, and 4) why you object so strongly to the impartial wording "AMAB person who identifies as a woman" (abbreviated). Taylan (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have literally addressed all of those issues before; see ICANTHEARYOU. The one thing I will underline is my answer to 2., namely that since this is an article on a gender identity the relevant definition of woman is as a gender. If you don't understand or agree with this basic point, perhaps you should back off editing gender-related articles rather than foisting on them your unsourced/FRINGE POV. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The current wording ("is a woman who was assigned male at birth") seems to be both in line with what reliable sources have to say about the topic, and a succinct introduction suitable to its location in the article — namely, we're talking about the lead here, which is just a short summary (in-depth explanation belongs in the article body). -sche (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be better in line with the citations if it simply said they are AMAB people who identify as women, as that is pretty much exactly what the citations say. Taylan (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As long as it's sourced I don't care, but make sure that it's sourced. Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, and some articles can contradict due to lack of citations on both of the articles. If there is no reputable citation, than leave it alone. If you do find a citation put the same wording as in the lead in the Overview section with a citation, if it is properly cited no one can complain but arguing over semantics won't get us anywhere and will only lead to bias and original research. ShimonChai (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through the first few citations on the page --all freely accessible ones corresponding to the "Overview" and "Terminology" sections-- and couldn't find any citation that supports the statement "trans women are women" in the first place. Dictionaries tend to define it as "male-to-female transsexual." The current wording is clearly POV-pushing, consistent with the behavior editors have been showing on other articles ever since I started touching these articles on Wikipedia. A wording such as "a trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman" is neutral and corresponds better with the citations. If there are any particular problems with that wording, I'd like to hear them. Taylan (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you listening to the actual discussion here? Posters have already suggested that this proposed "neutral" wording insinuates that Trans women are not women. That is a "particular problem". Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

How does it imply that? It's a very straightforward, factual, and neutral definition, which doesn't say that they are or aren't women. And by the way, your hostile tone is very unwelcome. Taylan (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@TaylanUB: The very fact you want to change "woman" to "person" suggests that a transwoman is not a woman. You said earlier you couldn't find a citation that supported "trans women are women". Here's one for you: Gender Recognition Act 2004. I'm sure there is equivalent legislation in other jurisdictions. --John B123 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You linked to a UK law, which applies only to a subset of transwoman UK citizens, and states that they are legally considered women. This is not global, not generalize-able to outside of law, and excludes all transwomen without a GRC. Taylan (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh and, "person" includes women, since women are people too. Taylan (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just dropping in to note, for the record, that yesterday saw some edit warring, accompanied by edit summaries indicative of a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community expectations. I'm sure that will settle down now. The current revision of the article contains the stable version of the lead paragraph, which should not be changed without clear consensus. (Strongly held opinions of what constitutes appropriate wording are not an acceptable substitute for consensus.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@TaylanUB: - I suggest you read, understand and digest Rivertorch's post above and desist from changing the content of the lead section again. --John B123 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@John B123:, I refuse to accept such a blatantly POV wording being reinstated just because there are enough editors that hold the POV. It's not supported by any of the citations given on the page, and takes a very clear stance on a difficult political subject. Feel free to bring in moderators or something; I'm not very good with Wikipedia bureaucracy. The "hold" editors are keeping over this page is the exact same thing I've experienced in other Wikipedia articles, in which some amount of neutrality was ultimately reached. I'm intent on achieving the same on this article, because this is Wikipedia and not RationalWiki. Taylan (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@TaylanUB: Sorry, but one person's view, however passionate they may be, don't take precedence over everybody else's view. --John B123 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@John B123: And I'm sorry but the POV of a group of editors does not take precedence over cited sources. :-) Various citations throughout pages such as woman and man are clear in that the primary definitions are "woman: adult female human" and "man: adult male human" (where female/male are defined biologically). The definitions based on the notion of gender identity are in conflict with those primary definitions, arise from an ideological position that has recently emerged in western society, and yet are being assumed as fact in the lead of this article. Given that "AMAB person who identifies as a woman" is a neutral definition, I think it's rather revealing how strongly some editors feel over the need to start the article with the statement "trans women are women..." Let me remind that this is quite literally a political slogan. What is so bad about saying "AMAB people who identify as women" anyway? Taylan (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"I refuse to accept such a blatantly POV wording being reinstated just because there are enough editors that hold the POV"... post structural ontological and epistemological debates aside, this comment illustrates the problem well. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Stop the horse abuse. The tag team efforts here and on trans man are getting tiring. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean with "tag team efforts"? (Genuine question.) The discussion on the trans man page is a separate one as far as I'm concerned, especially since I dislike bureaucracy... I'm aiming for a speedier fix in this article by putting up facts in people's faces (no hostility meant) rather than endlessly argue with them. Sorry about the duplicity. Taylan (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Saying "no legitimate issues ... were raised" when many others have pointed out issues is straying into "I didn't hear that" territory, and while linking to acronyms is so overdone on this site, that page does have some good advice: "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted." (I want to be clear that although the title of that page is "disruptive editing", I'm not accusing you of editing in bad faith: I think the advice useful even for editors who sincerely believe their POV "is NPOV" to consider.
A comparison might be: does the first sentence of the article on [[Donald Trump]] say he "lost the popular vote but won the electoral college and identifies as the 45th President of the United States", or indeed that he "identifies as having won the popular vote"? Or does the article on [[Barack Obama]] say he "is a politician who identifies as an American"? No, and indeed there are guidelines against that kind of wording that casts doubt on the veracity of things reliable sources report: the lead sentences of those articles just say that Trump "is the 45th and current President" (and only several paragraphs later says, again without "identify"-y language, that "he became [...] the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote"), and that Obama "is an American politician". This article, too, should not try to cast doubt on what the most reliable sources say.
-sche (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet it's true that no legitimate issues were raised. Someone claimed that "AMAB person who identifies as a woman" implies that they're not women. That's not true, as "person" may be a woman. Your analogies about presidency or citizenship make no sense in this context as they are related to legal recognition of a person as president or citizen under a specific state and its jurisdiction. There is no global official "womanhood" you can sign up to. A subset of transwomen living in certain countries are legally categorized as female under those jurisdictions. (And even if we were to focus on only those transwomen and only those jurisdictions, it still wouldn't justify a straightforward statement saying they "are" women, when there are other authoritative definitions of "woman" than the legal category, such as the common dictionary definition based on biology.) You say, at the end, that "the most reliable sources" consider transwomen to be women, but that is not the case. The only RS that was said to say this (I can't check as it isn't freely available) is a book by a transwoman philosopher outlining their philosophical position. Imagine if Janice Raymond's position in The Transsexual Empire was used to make factual statements on Wikipedia... Taylan (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with using "AMAB" in the lead section. The lead is supposed to give an overview of the subject of the article. It needs to be in a language that the 'average person' understands. The use of acronyms such as AMAB in this section won't help someone with no pre-knowledge of the subject to easily understand what the article is about. --John B123 (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was abbreviating out of laziness, my concrete proposal would be: "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman." Taylan (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Note, since they do not seem to have provided a mention/link to this yet, that Taylan has opened Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Definition_of_"trans_woman" on this topic. -sche (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead section: summary

Regarding the statement in the first sentence of the article which says that transwomen are women:

• It's not supported by citations. The only citation which was said to support the statement (can't check as not freely available) is a book by a transgender academic who doesn't seem very notable; this seems fringe.
• It's contradicted by the common definition of "woman" that can be found in most English dictionaries. Alternative definitions that recently began appearing in some dictionaries would constitute a neologism, which should not be depended on.
• It contradicts public view, as for instance a 2017 Pew Research poll has shown that more than half of the US population thinks that whether a person is a woman is defined by their birth sex.

The sentence should be reworded to an impartial phrasing such as: "A trans woman (...) is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman."

Is there any reasoned opposition to this proposal? Taylan (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The third of your statements implies the importance of quantity over quality (specifically it implies that the quantity of people who recognize trans women as women is important.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Insofar there are no authoritative reliable sources that definitively prefer one view (point nr. 1 I made), the "quality" of both views is equal. As such, the quantity would be the determining factor. But see my question to ShimonChai below on this... Taylan (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As "there are no authoritative reliable sources that definitively prefer one view", your original contention that the existing wording fails NPOV is therefore not verifiable. --John B123 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not posting a statement in agreement or disagreement here, just linking to the study so people know what Taylan is talking about. This is the 2017 pew poll. (Though I don't know if a US survey poll counts as a citation in this context?) Also, on a side note the common definition won't have a bearing on the outcome of anything. There is a specific section of WP:NOTADICTIONARY which addresses that.ShimonChai (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Views have already been expressed on this, I don't see the point in starting the discussion again. Polls, surveys are notoriously unreliable and the methodology often biased. For every poll or survey that supports an idea there is another that opposes the same idea. Just look at the deviation in polls leading up to an election for example. As this discussion seems to be going around in circles, maybe it's time to take a consensus. --John B123 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Help me understand this, ShimonChai: if the definition used contradicts common understanding, and the respective definitions are considered a politically contentious topic (which should be easy to demonstrate using RS, if desired...), doesn't that mean that wording preferring either side would violate NPOV? Taylan (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"contradict common understanding" There is no problem with Wikipedia contradicting common understanding. Wikipedia even has an article about common misconceptions. "and the respective definitions are considered a politically contentious topic (which should be easy to demonstrate using RS, if desired...), doesn't that mean that wording preferring either side would violate NPOV?" Yes it would, that's why I have been looking through Wikipedias rules to see which side is technically right for the past 2 days. The real question here is does Wikipedia's rule about gender identity apply to a demographic of people with a shared gender identity. Woman is specifically used as an example for a gendered noun. So if the rule did, what is the plural of woman? (It's women) ShimonChai (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep wording as is --John B123 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep current language and stop equine abuse. To address Taylan's points:

1. The place for citations is in the body of the article - where they are - not in the Lede.

2. The article is explicitly about a gender identity, and uses "woman" in its standard definition in the context of gender. This is not rocket (or bio) science.

3. Public opinion on gender and sex is relevant to the content to the article (as are anatomically-reductionist bathroom laws), but does not compete with reliable sources. All current reliable sources agree that Trans women have a female gender identity; as a gender, they are Women.

The editor proposing the change should produce at least one reliable source supporting their view, or drop the stick. Q.v. WP:SEALION. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you quote any reliable sources regarding where they state that transwomen are women? Regarding "[as] Trans women have a female gender identity; as a gender, they are Women", this is pretty much OR. Gender and gender identity are complicated topics on their own right.

Anyhow, forget about it, I'll hit the ANI as this doesn't seem to lead us anywhere. Taylan (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the onus here is that the proposer of changes needs to justify why the changes should be made, not everybody else justifying why it should stay as it is. Good luck with the ANI. --John B123 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"It contradicts public view, as for instance a 2017 Pew Research poll has shown that more than half of the US population"

And why would the opinion of a single country's population have any significance? They are neither representative of the world, not reliable sources. Academic works outweigh public opinion in reliability. Read again Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." Dimadick (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Note, since they do not seem to have provided a mention/link to this yet, that Taylan has opened Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Definition_of_"trans_woman" on this topic. -sche (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Why have you started a second section for this? Like other editors, I've already given my perspective in the preceding section. Your first point is mistaken, your second point is spurious for reasons others have already explained, and your third point is irrelevant for reasons which I see have already been explained by another user in this section. -sche (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added a source to the trans man page that might be useful to add to the trans woman page. Can someone add this as I am not able to? Thank you, Userwoman (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional source on the subject

Jordan Peterson, a renowned clinical psychologist, has said that trans women are not women. Reference: Peterson, Jordan. "Daily Politics". BBC. Retrieved 9 July 2018.

Edit: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. However, some academics do not define trans women as women. The label of transgender woman is not always interchangeable with that of transsexual woman, although the two labels are often used in this manner. Transgender is an umbrella term that includes different types of gender variant people (including transsexual people). Userwoman (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source on that statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Presumably a reference to this, which is not meaningfully by Peterson, it is just a panel show with him as one of several pundits discussing multiple issues. Calling him "renowned" is laying it on pretty thick. Some academics (actually renowned ones) believe extraterrestrials have visited earth as glowing green raccoons. Does this belong in the very first paragraph of extraterrestrial life? Of course not, and this waffle is even less relevant. A passing comment in a pop-sci gabfest by a controversy-baiting pundit doesn't belong in this article at all, much less the lede. "Be precise in your speech" indeed. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that the term renowned can be easily applied to anyone who writes a #1 best selling book. In the interview, he is asked point blank about his professional opinion and then he proceeds to give reasons for his answer. His statements aren't as off the cuff as you are trying to make them seem. Obviously Kary Mullis is speaking anecdotally and therefore cannot contribute anything meaningful. However, as a clinical psychologist who has worked with trans people and taught trans students, Jordan Peterson has the necessary professional expertise to weigh in on this subject, but more importantly he also has reasons for taking this position. You need to come up with something of substance in order to discount a tenured professor who has worked at McGill, Harvard and the University of Toronto. Substance, not style. "What could better confirm this than a long lament by a stuffy academic who dwells mostly on Peterson’s style without really engaging his substantive arguments?" Userwoman (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Renowned is a textbook WP:PEACOCK that doesn't belong at all. His popularity is not a reflection on his credibility here, as a self-help guru is not automatically an expert on every vaguely adjacent issue If he's made any substantive statements on this issue, you should be able to find a better source, specifically a third-party one. If that source justifies this being a defining trait, instead of one angry reactionary's opinion, we can go from there.

As far as Mullis, the existence of his opinions are as uncontroversial as Peterson's. Both are stating their professional opinions, neither belongs on Wikipedia without proper context and weight. Mullis's ideas were published in a book he wrote, which had an editor and publisher. This is far, far more substantial than Peterson's off-the-cuff comments.

I included the original link so anyone lucky enough not to know who Peterson is would know why he's controversial. As for the "substance" link, did you read that article? Do you agree with it? If we agree that Peterson's political ideas are "an ignorant mess", we can agree that his political ideas do not belong here without much, much better sources and context. If you claim this isn't a political idea, but a "psychological" one, yet again, find an academic psychological source with editorial oversight and fact-checking. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Writing a bestselling book has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's professional credentials, except as a writer. We don't cherry-pick quotes from people unless they're demonstrably representative of either the mainstream view within a given field or a notably significant minority view within that field. It may also be worth noting that clinical psychologists are generally not researchers but rather practitioners, so it is unlikely that such a person's writings would be in the vanguard of either majority or significant minority opinion unless the topic is a clinical one. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Does Germaine Greer or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie count? Also, I'm not supplying this as more evidence, but just as a good analysis of your tactics. "Extreme liberals (“woke” “progressives” as they like to call themselves), in the name of tolerance, take on a militant and authoritarian stance that rebuffs any deviation from their own group think and ignores all attempts at debate regarding transgenderism." And just in case you think that this is somehow a minority opinion here is another article by a feminist group and one by a woman who hosts the BBC's Woman's hour. Not that you'll believe it, but here is a random internet poll to say that people are divided on this issue. This issue is not as settled as you are trying to make it seem. Userwoman (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

First, make arguments about content instead of about editors, see WP:PA. This space is for improving the article, not speculations about other users personal politics. Second, it is worth pointing out that Adichie clarified later "Perhaps I should have said trans women are trans women and cis women are cis women and all are women", and that she didn't because of not having the word cis in her vocabulary. Rab V (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

But of course, none of the others changed their minds. Userwoman (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you make an effort to verify whether Germaine Greer's or Chimanda Ngozi Adichie's comments are reliable sources? Neither Greer nor Adichie has a degree in a relevant field. In an article that explicitly mentions Adichie's comments[5], Julia Serano, a biologist, has debunked the arguments made by people who claim that trans women who are not women and has said unequivocally, "Trans women are women." -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In the first source that I cited, Jordan Peterson makes an argument in the opposite direction. If you are going to make the suggestion that a biologist is best suited to weight in on this issue, then you must recognize that we are talking about a biological concept, instead of a socially constructed one (which I doubt that you will). Julia Serano has expertise in molecular biology and HOX genes, not in any psychological phenomenon. And to paraphrase from above, Writing a book has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's professional credentials, except as a writer. To say that she has "debunked" certain arguments is a bit of an overstatement. Were these opinions published in a peer reviewed journal or on a blog? Userwoman (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you benefit from taking a step back and looking at the forest instead of the trees? We're not here to argue with you about whether you are right; we're here to work together to make the article "Trans woman" better according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I brought up the article by Julia Serano (which was one of the top results when I google "are trans women women" (without the quotes)) to demonstrate how easy it was to find indications that Adichie's comments were not a reliable source.

You wrote this:

which I doubt that you will

One of the ways I respect you is that I do not tell you what you are or are not thinking or what you will or will not do. I would appreciate it if you showed me the same respect. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

None of those matter, do you have a citation that is from an actual organization with authority? Germaine Greer is a political figure, so is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. So what they say has no authority on this topic. "debate.org" isn't a valid citation (If 51% of people said the world was flat, that doesn't somehow make the world flat, and debate.org isn't published or monitored by any experts, it is merely a site for opinions) and what feminist groups, or any other political group says doesn't actually matter at all when it comes to talking about authoritative facts. Regarding the Times of Israel source, that is a blog post from the site. Sources that would actually matter in this context, would be things like the World Health Organization. Or any psychiatric consensus. Wikipedia isn't supposed to portray opinions of political organizations, or individuals as fact. If you are saying that the issue isn't "settled" then why are you to push one side? That seems contradictory. ShimonChai (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that you would discount Julia Serano (an individual) as having any authority on this issue. But wait? Later in your response you say that what groups say doesn't matter. So tell me, do you care about what groups say or not? The issue is not settled because there is still an ongoing debate, even if one side fails to acknowledge it. If you need sources I can certainly provide ones that do not assert that trans women are women, CDC: People who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men, APA: People who were assigned female but identify and live as male, Cornell: Individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male Userwoman (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am assuming that you employ a self-screening process before suggesting sources here. After all, you should not put the burden of determining whether a source is reliable on other editors without checking sources yourself. So may I ask how the quote from the CDC passed through your filter? It is the CDC's definition of "transgender men" (emphasis mine).[6]

Anyway, assuming that a source does not say that trans women are women, it is not for us to infer that trans women are not women. That sort of analysis is original research. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would discount what Julia Serano has to say, she is a political figure with no authority in the related scientific field. I said that feminist groups don't matter when it comes to objective and scientific parts of articles, since Feminism is a political ideology, it isn't a field within science. Groups that do matter, are ones that have established scientific authority, and are publishing in peer reviewed journals. (For example, the The International Consortium on EDS and Related Disorders, rewrote the diagnostic criteria for Ehlers Danlos Syndrome in 2017, and it was widely accepted since it was peer reviewed, and done by experts in the field.) When you said "if you need sources I can certainly provide ones that do not assert that trans women are women" you went on to list very valid sources like the CDC, however, they don't inherently say if transwomen are or aren't women. They, and all of the experts, use terms such as "assigned male at birth", and "identify as", however, identify as doesn't really mean they are, or aren't anything. You can identify as a human being, and I could say "that person identifies as a human being", that doesn't make them not a human being, nor does it mean that I am saying they aren't a human being. ShimonChai (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

ShimonChai and Marie Paradox, I think that these are all reasonable things to say. I would be very happy to limit the discussion to credible sources that follow Wikipedia's guidelines. From ShimonChai's response, this seems to be only groups with established scientific authority. I have provided 3 sources that do not define trans men as men, they do so in another way. In addition, here is what the WHO has to say "Transgender people are often defined as people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from their biological sex assigned at birth." I do believe that some original research must have occurred in order for this article to state that trans women are women, as this is wording is not found in any source. If this wording is present can someone please let me know where? Otherwise, I think that the wording of the definition should be reconsidered. Userwoman (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making arguments of the sort that people have already[7] shown you are not productive. According to the IOSF[8] "otters are members of the Mustelid family which includes badgers, polecats, martens, weasels, stoats and mink". The page does not say that otters are mammals. Does that mean Wikipedians are wrong to refer to otters as mammals? No, that would be fallacious. Refraining from saying that something is so is not the same as saying that it is not so. And again, why would you use quotes about trans men as evidence for what you say about trans women? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If these sources do not comment on whether trans women are women, then how did this language end up in the lead? Again, do you have an authoritative source that explicitly states that trans women are women? Userwoman (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an authoritative source that explicitly states that cis women are women? I've found sources (e.g., [9], [10]) that say "people", so clearly they're not claiming them to be actual women. Even the APA says so ([11]). Hopefully my sarcasm is evident enough in my attempt to show the inconsistency with Userwoman's reasoning that the use of "people" in the definitions of transgender women indicates that they're not actually women or that there is no consensus that they are. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, unfortunately sarcasm does not productively contribute to the discussion, so I won't respond to it. It is becoming painfully obvious that you do not have any sources to back up the current phrasing of the lead. If you did, you would simply present them and I would have nothing else to say. I've already presented several sources that have an alternative definition, one that was actually used in the past and has more precedent than the current definition. Userwoman (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, but it works to debunk the basis of your claims. But here you go: [12], p. 26 here too. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been a debate going on about this for awhile, and my position has been, that it will be either "assigned male at birth but identify as women." or "is a women who was assigned male at birth." to my understanding this hinges on if MOS:GENDERID applies to groups. As MOS:GENDERID states "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." The reason that this would apply is that Transwomen identify as women inherently. MOS:GENDERID seems to be in favor of Wikipedia not saying that an individual identifies as, but rather saying that an individual is. Hopefully soon there will be some sort of clarification on if MOS:GENDERID applies to transpeople as a group. ShimonChai (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

ShimonChai The phrasing, "people who were assigned male at birth but identify as women" aligns pretty closely with the definitions of professional/academic organizations. I agree that the current definition may not be derived from the best interpretation of MOS:GENDERID. Some things that apply to individuals should not be applied to groups. Citizens United_v._FEC comes to mind. Userwoman (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(←) Userwoman, you wrote this:

If these sources do not comment on whether trans women are women, then how did this language end up in the lead?

(The emphasis is mine.)
You seem to be suggesting that the decision to put "this language" into the lead is somehow akin to your fallacious arguments. How is that so? And how would you know if you do not know how "this language" ended up in the lead? More generally, could you answer the questions your fellow editors ask you? It would go a long way towards establishing common goals.
As for how we ended up with the current lead, elephino. But at the moment I can think of at least two ways the current lead is supported by the body of the article:

1. The article is replete with references that use the phrase "trans woman", and the section Terminology provides a source for the statement that "trans" is a modifier that explains the kind of woman.
2. The aforementioned section has a sourced quote from a philosopher saying, "Trans women are women." I ask non-rhetorically, Could it be any clearer than that? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, you and ShimonChai do not seem to be on the same page. Both of you have said conflicting things and so I want to make sure that we can have a consensus here. I am fine with either, but then we must proceed with what follows from those rules. Marie Paradox, you seem to want to include the professional opinions of individuals and for this end, I have provided at least 4 professionals who do not define trans women as women. If this is the route that you want to take, then both opinions need to be included in the article. However, ShimonChai seems to only find professional/academic organizations to be credible, which is also fine. But in this case, because no professional/academic organizations state that trans women are women, it cannot be included in this Wikipedia article. Why can't it be included? Because if it is not a position held by any of professional/academic organizations, then it must have been the result of original research. Am I being clear? Userwoman (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any change until consensus on the open discussion is ended, and a conclusion has been reached over there, that discussion has been going on since 15 June 2018. ShimonChai (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope you will let me begin by conceding that there were a couple of things in this discussion that I could have done better. First, the otter analogy was not very good for the reason you have pointed out: "It logically follows that if otters are in the family mustelidae and all mustelidae are mammals, then otters are mammals."[13] And you are right in that "using logic does not count as original research"[14]. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I believed otherwise. I would appreciate it if you pointed out such errors to me sooner in the future so that we do not have to keep retreading the same ground.

One of the points I was trying to make (very poorly, unfortunately) still stands. Let me put it another way: The statement in the lead and the quote from WHO are mutually compatible. Thus there is no basis for editing the lead on the basis of what WHO says.

Regarding individuals, are you including Greer and Adichie? There is a lot I can say about each of them here, but for the sake of time I will just reiterate that my primary objection is that neither is an authority in a relevant field. There is no double standard here. Every time I contemplate adding sourced content to this article I do three things: I check to see if it comes from an authoritative source, I check the source at Google Scholar to determine whether anyone else cites it, and I check to see if at least one person who cites it contains no argument against the article I am relying upon. Generally if at any of these three stages I do not come away with the desired results, I not only avoid inserting my content into the article but also avoid proposing it here. After all, your time and the time of other editors is valuable. You should not have to do my homework for me. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

I will be the first to say that I do not have access to the cited sources, but something seems not quite right here:

Trans woman is commonly interchanged with other words such as transgender and transsexual.[7] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, transgender is a term which refers to "a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these; transgendered."[5] This means someone who is transgender was born a certain sex but presents themselves as another. However, Heidi M Levitt describes transgender as "different ways in which people transgress the gender boundaries that are constituted within a society."

One cannot substitute the term "transgender" or "transsexual" for "trans woman" without creating a grammatically problematic sentence (e.g., "a transgender is a woman") or a sentence that confuses a part for the whole (e.g., "a transsexual is a woman"). (I will save my thoughts on whether it is wrong to use "transgender" as a noun for another day. For now I will just note that the wording is confusing when "transgender" is used as an adjective in the article and in most other instances.) And in its normal use "transgender" is an adjective and as such does not refer to anything.

Ordinarily I would change this myself, but because I cannot access the sources, for now I will only request that other editors change the sentences to the following:

"Trans woman" is commonly interchanged with other terms such as "transgender woman" and "transsexual woman". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a person is transgender if their "identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these" or if they are "transgendered". This means someone who is transgender was born a certain sex but presents themselves as another. However, Heidi M Levitt defines "transgender" as "different ways in which people transgress the gender boundaries that are constituted within a society."

This might require finding new sources.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I suspect some of the confusion may have resulted from an early copy-paste/move of info from the general article [[Transgender]]. I've edited the first two referred-to sentences along the lines of your suggestions, in diff. (Another way of stating it would be "In trans woman, the term trans is commony interchanged with transgender...") -sche (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and checked the citation on the oxford dictionary part, and noticed that it was just a link to the site of oxford dictionary which is a very improper way to use citations. So I googled the oxford dictionary definition to try and fix the citation and noticed that it was something completely different, so it must have been changed at some point but this is the current oxford definition "Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex." so I changed that part to reflect what the citation actually says. ShimonChai (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

UK English?

Are there any objections to changing the article to conform to UK English, including UK spelling? Currently the article uses both UK spellings (e.g., "recognised") and US spellings (e.g., "summarized").
If anyone is curious as to why I am suggesting we use UK English, according to the manual of style we should retain a style once a consensus is reached. In one of the more questionable uses of my time I found a revision made shortly before the current inconsistency, and it seems to have used UK English consistently outside the quote from Pat Califia, and I am surmising that break with consistency was a good faith edit made while failing to distinguish the quote from the body. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 18:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The article should be internally consistent in using whichever style it originally used, yes. It's not clear to me that that was a British style; the earliest diffs don't seem to use any distinctive spellings, and spot-checking diffs from subsequent years, I don't spot any until 2013, when I see "summarized" in the prose's discussion of people in the US and "recognised" in the 'List of notable trans women' blurb of a British woman. Randomly selecting a more recent revision, from 2015, I see the situation is almost unchanged, with "summarized" in discussing a US survey and "recognised" in blurbing that Brit, but with the addition of "color" (again in discussing American women); since then, another instance of "color" has entered the prose, while I don't spot any instances of "colour". This suggests that perhaps it is American style that should be retained. -sche (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this matter! I have replaced the word "recognised" with the US spelling. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 15:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

POV Tag

I am about to remove the POV tag for a variety of reasons. The first one I will mention is that it seems the POV lead tag would be more appropriate. As can be seen in many previous comments[15][16][17][18], the criticism has focused on the lead.

If anyone is going to reinsert a tag -- and I strongly recommend that if you do, you use the POV lead tag -- please keep in mind the following:

• The tag allows one to link to a specific section of the talk page, making it easier for all editors to see it is being used appropriately.
  • "The editor who adds this tag needs to discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." Ideally the section to be linked to will be one in which it is clear to editors which steps can be taken so that the tag can be removed. (Note that "in the absence of such a discussion, or if it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.")
  • "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." Ideally the section to be linked to will be one in which an editor does not rely solely on their views, the views of Wikipedia editors as reflected in a straw poll, or a public poll. (Note that I am using "or" in the inclusive sense here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my main objections here are that the wrong tag was used, and there is no link to a thread with substantial discussion about the disagreement. If someone wants to add the POV lead tag and link to a discussion in which a source is used, even a source I would argue is not reliable (as long as it does not fall into one of the categories I listed above), for now at least I will take that as prima facie evidence that there is a dispute over POV. I would have replaced the tag myself, but because I do not see a POV violation in the lead, I could not do so in good conscience. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 15:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Marie Paradox I realize that you wrote to address the talk page before undoing your removal of the POV tag, but unfortunately this is not how things work. We can certainly have the discussion here about whether or not to remove the tag. Please let me know if you have any questions. You should not make unilateral decisions like this without a proper discussion. Userwoman (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was nothing more than a slip on your part, but so as to avoid confusion, you were the one who undid the removal of the tag.[19]

Anyway, if you want a tag at the top of the page, why not replace the current one with a POV lead tag and link to a section of this page that has relevant sources cited? I am handing you an easy compromise here; why not take it? -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup templates exist primarily to notify editors of the need for cleanup and participation in an ongoing discussion - they are not intended to act as permanent disclaimers. The hope is that editors will see the template, and then either fix the problem, or click over to the talk page to offer some constructive feedback. If any editor attempts to do that here, however, they will find that there is no consensus for a change and a discussion that is going nowhere. It's not constructive and should probably be scrapped until there is some indication that the problem can be solved through editing or discussion. Nblund ^talk 16:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)\

Do you know of any reason to keep the current tag rather than one that specifies the problem with the lead (which is what all the discussion here and on NPOV/N has been about)? -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Nblund, I apologize. I think I may have misunderstood your comment. Are you saying that it currently is not constructive to have any POV tag at the top of the page? -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct. I don't think it's worth a major fight if there's a sensible compromise, but the cleanup tags should be reserved for cases where an editor has some hope of actually cleaning up. Nblund ^talk 19:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• comment - The POV tag was added by Taylan because she though "a transwoman is a woman ..." in the lead was POV. The consensus on here and on WP:NPOVN does not support the view so I can see no objection to the tag being removed. --John B123 (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The POV tag was added by Taylan because she he though[t]... Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - there's currently ongoing (and rather lengthy) discussion at WP:NPOVN regarding this article where it appears numerous uninvolved editors have voiced neutrality and clarity concerns [20]. In light of this, I don't think it's appropriate to remove NPOV tag at this point. I notice the argument is being made that this should be POV lead tag instead of general POV tag, but the edit history shows repeated outright removal of tag, not replacement of general tag with POV lead tag instead, I'm not sure the concerns are limited to the lead, although that certainly is a focus. Seems at least some version of POV tag seems appropriate for article at this point. DynaGirl (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What's more important -- being "right" or having an appropriate tag at the top of the page? The only reason -- a reason which has been there for you to read from the start -- that I did not replace the tag myself is that I cannot in good conscience put a POV tag at the top of the page when I do not feel there is a POV issue. And now that I think more about it, it makes sense for someone who does feel there is a POV issue to link the tag to the discussion they feel best expresses the nature of the dispute. If you want a tag there, why not just add it and link it to an appropriate discussion on this talk page? As I have said before, if someone -- anyone -- does that, I will not remove the tag anytime soon. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 17:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Marie, I don't think there's a POV issue, either, but placing the tag doesn't require you to align yourself with that belief. There is an ongoing discussion about it elsewhere and so it's legitimate to have the tag, indicating that some editors support that view. As requested, I linked the tag to the appropriate discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Until that discussion plays out, the tag should remain, regardless of our personal views about it. (Note: because of technical limitations of the {{POV}} template itself, I had to add the rump pointer section you see below in order to link to it.) Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, I still feel that a POV lead tag would be more appropriate than a generic POV tag. All the same, I appreciate your efforts to find a compromise in what has been a very polarized discussion. Thank you. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Marie, yes, that would be a more targeted tag; feel free to make that change. Just please keep the 'talk' param or adjust as necessary, if that tag's talk param works differently. Mathglot (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Done! -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOVN discussion pointer

This is just a convenience pointer to a discussion elsewhere. Please don't add anything else to this section.

Please see discussion at: WP:NPOVN#Definition of "trans woman".

In addition, this topic has been previously discussed above, in the following sections:

• Contradicts the articles "woman" and "female"
• Opening sentence
• Not a neutral article
• Lead section, one more time
• Additional source on the subject
• POV Tag

Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on introduction

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been at AN/C for some time now, so let me see what I can do.

There is consensus against options 3 and 4. There is consensus against option 8.

There is a consensus that the word "assigned" is preferable to the word "biological" (and "genetic", and similar words) for use in the lead sentence based on the current most reliable sources. Participants had concerns that "biological" is inaccurate with respect to intersex people, and that the word could cause significant confusion. Some participants had concerns that "assigned" is overly jargony to be understood by people in certain cultural contexts, but other participants noted that the body of the article is intended to explain the concepts in more detail. Many participants noted that that reliable sources tend to use "assigned". On the whole, "assigned" attracted more support backed by policy-based arguments. This consensus applies only to the lead sentence and does not in itself preclude the use of "biological sex" in the remainder of the article.

Some participants suggested using the word "identified" in place of "assigned", but it was not as thoroughly discussed, so this RfC does not answer whether "identified" is preferable to "assigned".

Some RfC participants had strong opinions regarding whether option 1 or option 2 should be adopted, but there were also many participants who expressed support for both, or who noted that both would be acceptable to them (even if they had a preference for one or the other).

Participants on both sides of the dispute suggest that reliable sources weigh heavily in favor of either option 1 or option 2. Some participants suggested that the absence of sources that explicitly proclaim "transgender women are women" supports option 2, but the use of the phrase "transgender women" tends to suggest that the authors of the source do, in fact, believe they're women. On the other side, participants favoring option 1 cite RS to support their position, but it does not seem like the weight of reliable sources supports one particular wording over another.

Some participants had concerns that option 1 is less clear than option 2 and could cause substantial confusion, particularly among people unfamiliar with the verbiage.

Some participants had concerns that option 2 weakens or implicitly casts doubt upon transgender women being women. Other participants argued that option 2 is the most neutral wording and refrains from going further than reliable sources.

The number of participants preferring either "woman" or "person who ... identifies as a woman" over the other on both sides were roughly equal. Both sides presented strong arguments. Neither side's arguments were substantially weaker or less policy-grounded than the other.

On the whole, there is consensus that both option 1 and option 2 are superior to other presented options. There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds. This does not preclude any subsequent discussions about the article content, but participants should in all cases refrain from edit-warring over the content of the lead or the article more broadly.

I see suggestions that a three-admin panel to close this RfC. If anyone is unsatisfied with my close, please let me know – if more than a couple people request, I would be happy to submit my closure to two other uninvolved administrators for review and a joint closure.

Thank you to all those who participated. All the best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

---

There has been extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard as to whether the current introductory sentence of Trans woman is appropriate. From the discussion come these proposals for the introductory sentence:

1. A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
2. A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman.
3. A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman whose biological sex does not align with their gender identity.
4. A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a male-to-female (MTF) transsexual or transgender person.
5. General support for describing a trans woman as a woman.
6. General support for describing a trans woman as a person.
7. General support for "assigned".
8. General support for "biological".

Although it may complicate things slightly for the closer, feel free to combine multiple options. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

[modified 22:23, 6 August 2018‎ to clarify that this is about first sentence only]

Straw poll

• Comment I am restoring my original !vote here because I think there are good arguments in favor of both 1 and 2. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1, 5 and 7 - the existing text is adequate, uses the terminology of the topic of the article, clearly distinguishes the use of "woman" by contrast, and offers links for anyone confused by the terminology. That said I would not lose any sleep over option 2, just don't see a compelling reason for the change. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2, 6, 7 I didn't think 2 would get this much support, but if some number of people find it reasonable then I don't see the harm in it, and it avoids taking a side in whether a trans woman is a woman using a word in an ambiguous way. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Updated 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • To quote MOS:LEAD:
      1. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
      2. It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible.
      3. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.
    • —DIYeditor (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, oppose 4, strongly oppose 3 and 8 - while I'd personally prefer 1 and 5, 2 and 6 seem more neutral to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 4 & 5 - Neutral and easily understood by a reader who has no knowledge of the subject. Also support 7 within the body of the article but not in the lead. --John B123 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify, did you mean 6 (person) not 5 (woman), or that the wording of 4 should be changed to "woman"? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I support 4 as the definition of a transwomen and 5 for general use, for example in the opening of 'Overview': "Both transsexual and transgender women..." . In 4 (the definition), the use of "woman" is unnecessary because gender has been identified by "male-to-female" (Hope that makes sense). --John B123 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, the questions were meant to refer to the introductory sentence but I can see that the wording is not entirely clear in that as far as "general support" - maybe I should strike the "general" or "general support for" before this goes much further? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 4 - I initially supported 4 because I though it provided a good compromise between the various views and avoided the differences of opinion of woman/not woman and assigned/not assigned. However from the other comments in this poll there seems to be a lack of willingness to compromise. This option has also been opposed as a result of misinterpretation of WP:RS. With that in mind, I have added ! to my support. Although I don't think it's the ideal definition, it's better than the others. Also that is the existing wording and nobody has made a convincing argument, in my eyes, to justify changing it. --John B123 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit to add: A better definition in the lead would be "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was identified as male at birth". This is more compliant with MOS:LEAD and avoids the ambiguity of "assigned" as previously detailed by various editors. --John B123 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 - I do not oppose 2, 5, 6, and 7. I primarily support 1 because transgender is an adjective, just as cisgender is. To call someone a trans woman or a cis woman is still calling them a woman. Linguistically, 1 is fine. I wish to make clear my strong objections to 3, 4, and 8. While !votes are lovely, we must go by WP:RS. The language in 3, 4, and 8 is not supported by many contemporary sources. The "assigned (fe)male at birth" language is widely used by professional and mainstream sources and not WP:JARGON or WP:NEO: American Psychological Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics NBC News, Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, WBUR, Entertainment Tonight, NYTimes, and Newsweek. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you sure about that? It's not hard to find definitions like these, which either use the "biological" language or a term that they intend to be a synonym. For example, just in the last year or so, these books have defined transwomen as being male in biological terms and women in gender terms:
    • Transgender: A term that refers to an individual whose gender identity does not match his or her biological sex. Transgender Female or Transwoman: A transgender female or transwoman identifies her gender as female, but was biologically considered a male at birth."
    • transwoman – noun: Identity label sometimes adopted by male-to-female transsexuals or transgender people to signify that they are women while still affirming their history as assigned male sex at birth." (noting that they define "biological sex" as being equal to "assigned sex" on page 259: biological sex – noun: a medical term used to refer to the chromosomal, hormonal and anatomical characteristics that are used to classify an individual as female or male or intersex. Often referred to as simple "sex", "physical sex", "anatomical sex", or specifically as "sex assigned at birth").
  • You might also be interested in this definition:
    • "transwoman: A term to describe a person who was identified male at birth but who identifies and portrays her gender as female"
  • It is a bit unusual in its phrasing, but it gets around the "assigned" language (which I've no objection to, but some others seem to) and addresses both gender identity and gender expression. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would point out that the first of the above is a perfect example of what I would call a "low quality source" in this context. People can afford to be dated in their understanding when they write outside of their specialization. Q.v. Jordan Peterson. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• • • Fixed. 3 is still around, but not the norm in my experience. Folks like Anne Fausto-Sterling point out we don't usually karyotype infants, so "biological sex" is dubious. The "assigned" language is widely used. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • If sex is only a social construct, and it's not true that most individuals fit into one of the two sexes, how does sexual reproduction work? Most human individuals can play one of the two roles in reproduction, otherwise the human race would be long extinct. Sex assignment upon birth is done using the most obvious aspect of it: the genitalia, and for most humans, that is sufficient, as having well defined genitalia is highly correlated with other aspects of sex (chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical). Indeed, most transgender people aren't intersex. I don't understand the resistance to sex. It seems as though many people think that the objective existance of sex means transgender people are somehow "faking it" or that it's personal decision. This is rediculous of course, as transgender people aren't deciding to be transgender: they are truly and deeply feeling, at the core of their identity and being, that they identify themselves as the other gender. And that's enough for me to respect that, at aleast. Av = λv (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying your comments. BTW, you haven't actually needed to do a karotype (a very specific test) for decades to find out whether someone has a Y chromosome, but it doesn't really matter: "biological sex" is not a synonym for "genetic sex" or "chromosomal sex". The stronger argument is that "biological sex" has been defined by the medical establishment according to six (objective, spectrum-based) characteristics, and that some people disagree with the definition (e.g., because it ignores hypothesized neurological conditions or because it exists primarily to label intersex people). The second reason that it doesn't matter is because, even if you dispute the definition, that dispute has little bearing here, because the alternatives to "biologically male" are intersex and female, not trans. The sex and gender distinction, and a "mismatch" (compared to "typical") between the biological sex and identified gender is the main point of the transwoman definitions. It is not unusual for transwomen to investigate the possibility of being intersexed, but almost all of them who test discover that they are, in fact, "biological males" according to the mainstream medical definition of "biological male". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear, here are the definitions within the sources provided by EvergreenFir.
    • APA: People who were assigned male, but identify and live as female and alter or wish to alter their bodies through medical intervention to more closely resemble their gender identity are known as transsexual women or transwomen (also known as male-to-female or MTF).
    • ACOG: Male-to-female—refers to someone who was identified as male at birth but who identifies and portrays her gender as female. Also known as MTF or transwoman.
    • WHO: Trans woman is never mentioned
    • CDC: Transgender women describes people who were assigned the male sex at birth but identify as women.
    • AAP: Transgender Girl: Children assigned male at birth who identify themselves as girls
    • NBC: Trans woman is never mentioned
    • Washington Post: Trans woman is never mentioned
    • Cosmopolitan: Trans woman is never defined
    • WBUR: Trans woman is never mentioned
    • ET: Trans woman is never mentioned
    • NYT: Trans woman is never defined
    • Newsweek: Transgender women: those who were assigned male at birth

I don't see any language in these sources that supports option 1. Userwoman (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 or 4, Oppose 1 as it has a lack of clarity (especially for readers not already familiar with the subject or from non-western cultures). In this article 'person' would be clearer and lead to less confusion (again especially for readers not already familiar with the subject or from non-western cultures), but 'person' should not be preferred in articles on specific tansgender women (where no such confusion would be likely). I'd support both or neither of 'assigned' and 'biological' depending on where they are meant to be used and the context. Oppose 3; It will be unclear to some readers whether this definition is referring to a trans man (F to M) or a trans woman (M to F). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 only It is the clearest definition of the term that includes both those that have transitioned to women and those that identify as a woman. I will point out #4 explicitly excludes that last group despite being included in most discussions about who a trans-woman is. my bad I see that includes "transexual" --Masem (t) 21:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support for 2 and 5, strong support for 7 . I think 1 and 5 are perfectly acceptable, but 2 closely mirrors the language in multiple reliable sources. The "biological male" language is scientifically dubious - so I'm a firm "no way" on 3 & 8. Nblund ^talk 21:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Edit: changed support for "6" to "5". 2 seems fine for an initial definition, but "woman" or "person" are both fine in the remainder of the article. Nblund ^talk 14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2, 6, and 7, I believe 2+6 is the best way to go since it avoids passing judgment on the contested issue of the grand concept of a woman. 7 is accepted terminology. Further more, you get enhanced clarity. Av = λv (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2. I came here from the RfC notice, and I have not been involved in the discussions leading up to here. It seems to me that version 2 states it correctly, and is clearer than the other versions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2, 6 & 7, based on definitions in reliable sources listed in the section below. 1 & 5 are not out-of-line with sources in principle, but don't make for the clearest possible introductory definition. 3, 4 & 8 run contrary to reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 4 It is the only option that explicitly captures the nature of the transition in unambiguous terms. This is also the definition installed at simple:Transwoman, and it is much clearer IMO. Oppose 1 & 2 because its use of "assigned" is counter-intuitive WP:JARGON. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1, #5, and #7. Georgia guy (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1, 7, & 8, would support 2 only if "but" were changed to "and", or the sentence tweaked to read similar to "assigned male at birth with a female gender identity". Oppose 4 as it doesn't adequately explain the topic compared to the others. Oppose 3 because that would be extremely confusing to some readers. I would oppose or support 8 depending on the context in which the word was used. --Equivamp - talk 23:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1, 5 & 7 because these are the terms used in the best and most up to date sources, and so we don't have to have the same "discussion" every year or two for the next decade. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 oppose 4 per EvergreenFir's argument about WP:RS, as well as the fact that people with XXY, and XX chromosomes assigned male at birth have been, and are capable of being diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria, and thus technically able be transwomen. (As described by the sources talking about such cases.) It is also more likely for Klinefelter people to be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria than the average population. With the paper linked concluding with "The role of biological factors in gender identity is affirmed." In regards to the Jargon argument, I don't see how assigned male at birth would come off as "intrinsically technical". WP:Jargon is typically only used in contexts where someone fluent in the English language wouldn't be able to comprehended the article due to it using technical concepts that require uncommon background knowledge. Understanding the concept of birth being assigned can easily be grasped by a native English speaker. If they can't understand the concept of something being assigned instead of being absolute there is a simple version of Wikipedia, and whatever language they natively speak. ShimonChai (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 per EvergreenFir and ShimonChai. Rab V (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 Few sources explicitly state that trans women are women. To say that they are people (or even males) who identify as women is much clearer. I don't particularly support the euphemistic term "assigned" but that does seem to be what most sources use. Userwoman (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 because it just seems to most clearly capture the meaning of transgender, with 4 as a second choice. I think 1 and 3 could somewhat more confusing to people not familiar with the terminology. Oppose 8 as I think putting "biological" in the first sentence adds unnecessary complication. Throughout the article, and in general, I think transwomen should be referred to has women, but I think having "person" in the first sentence just adds clarity, and "woman" is already in the term itself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 (could also support 3 & 4) and Oppose 1. General support for 6. 5, 7 and 8 would be ok with clarification such as text, wikilinking and/or inline notes explaining the usage, but this isn't always done, so do not generally support these.DynaGirl (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1, 5, and 7. The current wording is clear and aligns with reliable sources. Oppose 2 as unacceptably misleading because it implies that trans women's status as women is based purely on personal choice, which is not true. 2's wording is also less clear. Oppose 3 as potentially confusing and not necessarily accurate. Oppose 4 as blatantly unfactual. Oppose 6 as an attempt to deny the womanhood of a subset of women. Oppose 8 as unacceptably vague. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, why do you believe 2 implies being trans as a personal choice? Av = λv (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ido66667: For two reasons. First, it says "identifies as", which suggests that the individual has made a decision to do so. Identity, in this usage of the word, is about how one regards oneself; it doesn't speak to one's essential, innate nature. Second, it says "but identifies with" (my italics), which could be viewed as setting up the identification as something contrary to nature. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1, which is in line with most of the reliable sources (including medical / "MEDRS"-compliant sources) I've seen and that other users have posted in discussions of this. #2 changes the wording to cast doubt on it (we have guidelines against that in the general case), seemingly to fit a certain non-neutral point of view, as can be seen from its proponents comments in the noticeboard thread (where some of them write off or simply refuse to hear the reliable sources' presentation as "ideological" and invoke (unreliable) polls and what they claim a silent majority of people feel about the topic). #3 would poorly define the scope of the article, since some aspects of "biological sex" seem to be correlated to gender identity in both cis and trans women (our articles on the topic give an overview of this). #4 is outdated, out of line with what modern (MED)RS say about the topic (I seem to recall some style guides even advising against it as offensive?). Hence, I broadly support 5 and 7, and oppose 8 (and 3 and 4). Good luck to whoever has to make sense out of everyone's preferences for and against all these options. I wouldn't discount the possibility that the result will be no clear consensus. (Should this be closed by a three-admin panel, as contentious discussions sometimes are?) -sche (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, I'd like to call special attention (as Aquillion also has) to the fact that while some people who prefer version 2 [say that they] rely on the notion that it is more neutral, other people who support it have indicated both here and in the NPOVN discussion that their rationale is that they feel it endorses in Wikipedia's voice their (non-neutral) POV that trans women are not women. (We have guidelines that advise against weakening wording to cast doubt on something, namely WP:CLAIM and WP:WEASEL, though I only mention them here for the general principle they represent, without being interested in a long debate over whether or not the letter of them applies here.) -sche (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1, 5, and 7, and strongly oppose 2, 3, 4, and 8. As per WP:LEAD, the information in the current lead is "covered in the remainder of the article". It is also consistent with reliable sources, including the MEDRS. As per WP:FRINGE, we should not be implying or using innuendo to deny the "well-established"[21] fact that trans women are women. As for the other proposals, all I will say for now is that we should avoid 2 because it contains a word to watch, and we should avoid 3 because it inconsistently genders trans women. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2, oppose 3 - I find all the arguments that reliable sources support only one of these definitions to be dubious. I feel that a phrasing that distinguishes between "gender at birth" (and "assigned male at birth", despite being a jargon term, is the clearest term here) from gender identity is best. I specifically oppose 3 because it goes out of its way to make the difference between "trans woman" and "trans man" unclear. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 because it's clear and neutral. There's no way that can be considered offensive, although the "assigned male" part is probably confusing to people unfamiliar with this jargon, and may cause them to believe that a baby was assigned male because the gender could not be identified through the usual means and the person has an intersex condition. Also Support 8 and Oppose 7. Natureium (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Now that I'm rereading this, also oppose 3 as being very confusing. Natureium (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 because it's clear and neutral. Like others, I don't like the use of "assigned at birth", since it is jargony, is unclear and implies a random bureaucratic process and would prefer "identified at birth" since this is a simpler and more accurate description of the process (someone looks at the genital area - and decides). Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 As the clearest, most neutral definition. I am not sure what 5,6,7,and 8 are trying to achieve, but on the whole I am also not a fan of "assigned male at birth" and would like some better clarification of biological sex vs sex as a social constraint, but that can be hashed out later if necessary. They don't need to be in the opening sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 + 5, which seems to reflect the most up-to-date sources. I don't agree with the argument that it could cause confusion. Oppose 2 + 6 in strongest possible terms (presuming 6 means 'avoid calling them a woman') as non-neutral; "identifies as a woman" or tiptoeing around calling them a "woman" implicitly casts doubt on that identification, per WP:SAID, and through that on the entire topic of the article, which is absolutely unacceptable for a topic like this. Some people have implied, above, that they think 2 is neutral because it "avoids taking a side", but that isn't how neutrality works - we are required to present facts as facts, and opinions as opinions. Tiptoeing around something like that would unavoidably signal, in the Wikipedia voice, that trans women are not actually women - it takes a side regardless of intention. Strongly oppose 4 as inaccurate and outdated - to the extent that MtF or FtM are still used, they're used to refer to the actual process of transitioning, which is not necessary to be a trans woman. EDIT: Since some people supporting version 2 have relied on the argument that they believe it to be more 'neutral', I do want to specifically call attention to the multiple !votes, both above and below, and numerous similar comments in the comment section that fairly clearly indicate that that they are supporting that version because they feel that using such weasel terms in the first few sentences would be unequivocally asserting the POV that trans women are not women in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1, 5, 7 both in principle because I strongly support Wikipedia reflecting the self-identification of marginalized populations, because it is supported by a vast array of literature from multiple sectors, and because it's closest in keeping with the MOS:GENDERID Policy.Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2, 4, 6, oppose 1, 3, 5 because Wikipedia stating "transwomen are women" would be biased, whereas all other options seem fairly factual to me. I disagree that supporting the human rights of transsexuals requires the linguistic erasure of women, i.e. the human female sex, especially since they are an oppressed class of people. I'm impartial towards "assigned" or "biological". Taylan (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I am fascinated by this rather postmodern argument that it is "linguistic erasure" when a word is used to mean different things in different contests. Also, bonus points for articulating the argument in a way that presupposes its own underlying assumption, i.e. that Trans women are not included in the category "woman". By the way, we now have the perfectly good term "cis women" to articulate the group of women who were assigned female at birth, in case the concern about "erasure" were anything but a "white knight" rhetorical strategy. (You do lose a few points for using the 1990s term "transsexual", which really does erase the hard-won recognition of Trans men and Trans women who do not fit the ancient, restrictive "transsexual" category, and especially for using it as a noun and not an adjective.) Newimpartial (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, there is a section reserved for threaded discussion below. Why did you insert your contrarian opinion below my vote instead? Not even sure if I want to respond below though, as your use of "white knight" takes me back to when I was having Internet-arguments as a 14 year-old... Taylan (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1, 5, 7 as a matter of reflecting reliable sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment- during the lengthy NPOV discussion [22], a concern raised with respect to the current wording, choice 1, involved lack of sourcing for the statement “Trans women are women”. So I googled this and could find only one somewhat iffy reliable source for “Trans women are women” from The Root [23]. To those voting 1 based on the sourcing, if there is stronger sourcing, please provide some links, because I think this might result in people who voted against choice 1 changing their votes. DynaGirl (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If you use Google books or Google scholar for that phrase, you get much higher quality results. I don't have time to sort through them at the moment, apart from the citation I already offered below.Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, we can wait. Please share what you have found. Userwoman (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you seem to have the time to comment on several discussions below. Do you need more time to find reliable sources on Google scholar or Google books? Will you have time to do so soon? These sources certainly would be very valuable to this discussion. Userwoman (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes it is more effective to teach people to fish. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, unfortunately this is not the place for childish games. Do you have sources to support option 1 or no? I certainly have found sources that support option 2 and have presented them clearly. You are fooling no one at this point. Userwoman (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

For the archives, one unquestionably reliable source is here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 or partially 3 - I was not part of any discussion nor have I read any past discussions. The terms woman or person are minimal in deciding this imho but "person" is closer to being accurate, and that's what we strive for at wikipedia. I do like the sentence structure of choice 3 the best but I would word it slightly different. "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person whose male biological sex does not align with their female gender identity." To me that flows better as a sentence and sounds less harsh than some others. Just my feeble opinion on a subject that appeared on my talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"male biological sex" sounds very strange to me. besides, trans women could be intersex. —mountainhead / ? 19:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• • • I don't see why, but it could be written as "biological sex of male" instead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

that's even worse. is english your second/third language? "biological sex of male" sounds extremely unnatural. —mountainhead / ? 00:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • There's no need to cast aspersions. A trans woman is a male who identifies as a woman is the simplest way to phrase that sentence. It points out that sex is a distinct concept from gender. Does this phrasing sound more natural to you? 96.44.4.219 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

well, yeah, but then you've taken out the "biological sex" aspect entirely, and you end up with an entirely different option than the user I was replying to was advocating for in the first place. —mountainhead / ? 15:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1, 5, 7, weak support 2, 6, oppose 3, 8. See my comments below. -- Ununseti (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • + option 1: I think is the most concise and straightforward. It follows the fairly common format of "An {adjective} {noun} is a {noun} that {more detail...}" as seen in articles such as Maple syrup and Periodic comet.
  • + option 5: Trans is an adjective; for me, my understanding is that a trans woman is a woman who is trans; and so, a trans woman ought to be a woman. It looks like some people here are opposed to this option on the grounds that it assumes that trans women are women, which may be POV-pushing because trans women are not considered women by everyone. It is true if something is called an "{adjective} {noun}", this does not necessarily imply that it is a "{noun}" (e.g. see Dwarf planet); however, unlike with dwarf planets, there is no single unified organization like the IAU that standardizes what woman means; it will differ from person to person, and so I think this article should prefer common usage. I think most people would by WP:DUCK categorize trans women as a subset of women, which is why I think option 1+5 are okay. Maybe people will disagree, in which case I could live with options 2+6; but honestly I would prefer options 1+5.
  • + option 7: "Assigned male at birth" is a common piece of terminology in matters like this, and gives the reader a nice wikilink early on for more detail on the nitty gritty details and edge cases of sex assignment. Furthermore, it also has a very precise meaning. The problem with an alternative like "identified as" is that it can introduce ambiguities, since "identify" is also commonly used for gender identity (e.g. "wait so can newborns decide their gender identity?"). Also, I don't think "assigned" is particularly jargon-y, because it's self-explanatory enough to give readers a vague sort of general idea of what it means (e.g. "oh so someone was like 'yup that's a dude' when the baby was born"). I especially support excluding the acronym "AMAB" in the lead as done here, because the acronym isn't especially relevant to the present article, and the phrase "assigned male at birth" stands well enough on its own; the linked article provides the acronym anyway.
  • + option 2 follows the fairly common format of "A {noun} is a {more general noun} that {more detail...}" as seen in articles such as Planet, White dwarf, and Banana. So, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this one. I think it's a bit longer and less concise than option 1, but I could live with this option if need be.
  • + option 6 is okay because "person" is just a more generalized word than "woman", so it's not incorrect. I'd just prefer the term woman, because it's more specific. But again, I could live with this option if need be.
  • * option 4: "Male-to-female" is fairly clear and unambiguous, which is nice. Also, it's nice that the definition here makes it clear that "trans" can stand for "transsexual" or "transgender". However, that just gives the reader two more opaque terms to look up, and so the definition isn't very good as a standalone first sentence; the lead ought to answer as concisely and clearly as possible, "eli5 what is a trans woman?" I think option 1 and to a lesser extent, option 2 do a better job at this. Also, ugh to the bracketed acronym... "MTF" is actually only mentioned once in Trans woman, and this one occurrence is in a sentence that explains the origin and and meaning of the acronym; so, the acronym definition is extraneous here.
  • - option 3 takes longer to parse, and just feels more unclear and ambiguous. Also, it opens the whole "biological sex" can of worms too early on. See my comment about option 8 below.
  • - option 8 is a confusing term. If a trans woman takes hormones and undergoes SRS to become physically female, is she still trans? Someone brought up in this Reddit thread that there are multiple components to biological sex, including but not limited to chromosomal sex, reproductive sex, hormones and genitals, secondary sexual characteristics, and neurological sex. And so, the meaning of biological sex can actually be rather ambiguous. And so it's not very helpful for someone trying to understand this topic for the first time.
  • Additional note: For me, option 1 vs. option 2 is just a matter of emphasis. Colloquially, I think most people would interpret option 1 as "A woman who used to be a guy", and option 2 as "A person who used to be a guy but is now a woman". The first option emphasizes the present and then the past, whereas the second option emphasizes the past, and then the present. How do people conceptually visualize a trans woman? A woman—but flashback, they were a boy when they were younger? Or a boy—and then they turned into a woman? Personally, I've found myself using both. Taking Wandering Son as an example, I think of Yuki using definition 1 because she's already transitioned when she gets introduced, but think of Nitori using definition 2, because at the beginning of the story, she's still in the process of figuring out her gender identity.

Just my 2 cents. -- Ununseti (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment at Ununseti re. WP:DUCK: please note that nowadays "trans woman" includes people such as Alex Drummond, Danielle Muscato (picture), Gabriel Squailia, Riley J. Dennis, Travis Alabanza, and so on. Passing is not a requirement for being considered a trans woman. Neither is a desire to pass. Taylan (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• support 5, strong oppose 4, weak oppose 2. I don't entirely agree with the wording of any of the four proposed phrases, so I'm not supporting any of them, though I have the easiest time getting behind option 1.

I am a trans woman myself, and I personally prefer "biological" to "assigned", because I've never really agreed with the trans community's consensus of gender being wrongfully "assigned" at birth. it is merely a logical conclusion drawn from biological sex, knowing that in 99.5% of people, these two things align. that being said, I think I'm being a bit of a pedant here, and some people interpret biological as correct, which is suboptimal.

transsexual is outdated terminology and should not be used. I also firmly believe trans women should be described as women first and foremost, since the only real authority on one's gender is the person themselves, but that might be bias on my part. —mountainhead / ? 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 - Accurate, concise, refreshingly unbigoted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 Seems the easiest for a reader unfamiliar with the subject to understand. Also why was 6 even on here? had someone suggested a trans woman wasn't a person?? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone might not have an opinion on how to describe a trans woman so would not prefer either 5 or 6. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 4, 6 and 8 Strongly against "assigned"; this is more correctly used to refer to people with DSD.  pablo

• Support 1 & 5, Oppose 3,4 & 8, weak Oppose 2, no objection to 6 or 7 Just to keep it short as I know I am probably far too late. 1 is simple, neutral and straightforward. Biological is a minefield, especially regards the rainbow of Intersex variations. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Round one

This has been re-hashed multiple times and discussed to death so I am a little doubtful of the utility of threaded discussions, but this is a much better place for it than NPOV/N. In my opinion it would be nice if we could keep the survey fairly clean and have any protracted debates down here. Pinging editors involved in discussion: TaylanUB, Masem, Jamez42, EvergreenFir, Betty Logan, Natureium, HiLo48, Mathglot, Smeat75, -sche, Newimpartial, Bonadea, Rab V, Insertcleverphrasehere, JFG, John B123, Rivertorch, Marketless, Moriori, Power~enwiki, Marie Paradox, Userwoman, Georgia guy, Icewhiz, 155.254.48.193, Nblund, Cambalachero, Jbhunley, Only in death, Blueboar, Slatersteven, Red Rock Canyon, Trystan, ShimonChai, Rhododendrites, Ido66667, Roxy the dog, DynaGirl, InedibleHulk, Awilley, Jayron32, MarnetteD, Guy Macon, SarekOfVulcan, WhatamIdoing. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh no, not again How many times do we have to do this? If the desired objective is not achieved this time, will there be another Rfc at another forum? This is starting to feel like disruption to me. I have other fish to fry. You guys have a go at it; let me know how it all turns out. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I was not able to discern any clear decision from the NPOV/N discussions and multiple people suggested an RfC to settle it. Hopefully this can put it to rest once and for all. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Whatever the outcome, is there any mechanism on WP to prevent the "losing" side having another attempt? --John B123 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • "Not discerning any clear decision" happens all the time in discussions; it's called, "no consensus". Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
        • There wasn't a single question or topic to find consensus on or not. It went all different directions and didn't allow for a coherent combination of opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the previous RfC's were problematic enough that there's might be a case for a new one here. Regardless of the outcome (including No-consensus), I'd say it would be clear-cut disruption if the someone started another RfC after this one without a compelling reason to believe that the status quo had shifted significantly. Nblund ^talk 22:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is confusing. Talk page archives show no previous RfC on talk:Trans woman. DynaGirl (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be because the previous RfC on this issue was for the article Trans man. Hard to keep track without a programme... Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Round two

• Just a reminder that Wikipedia does not vote on things. Support your positions with policies, guidelines, sources, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Our selection between the above options needs to be governed by reliable sources. To facilitate that evaluation, here are some definitions pulled from the sources EvergreenFir provided above:
  • APA: Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.
  • CDC: Transgender is a term for people whose gender identity or expression is different from their sex assigned at birth.
  • AAP: Transgender girl - Children assigned male at birth who identify themselves as girls
  • This Lancet article: Transgender woman - a person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or in similar terms.—Trystan (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:RS is concerned with matters of fact and expert opinion, not language. Whilst we do use the terms from RS mostly, the lead section, and in particular the definition, needs to be written for readers with little or no knowledge of the subject. Using more technical terms can be counterproductive to that aim. Whilst technical terms can be linked for explanation, that's a poor second to explaining it in layman's terms. --John B123 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Definitions 3 & 4 above aren't simply rewordings of the definitions that dominate the reliable sources, they are substantively different. Most of the above sources are written for the public, so provide good guidance on our language choice.--Trystan (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Are you saying definitions 3 & 4 are factually incorrect? --John B123 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

yes, especially 4. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would stress that 3 is deprecated and misleading according to recent, reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 3 is supported by this recent, high quality reliable source from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which says: Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth. [24] DynaGirl (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, The American Academy of Pediatrics article was published in 2016. You cannot discredit this source. The same goes for you EvergreenFir and the 2016 article from the Lancet. You cannot dismiss credible sources, even if you may not personally agree with them. I hope that from here on out everyone provides sources and definitions until we reach a consensus. Userwoman (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Userwoman The American Academy of Pediatrics source does not use the term 'biological sex', I believe that is the part of 3 Newimpartial is calling outdated. Rab V (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Rab V, I'm not quite sure how you can read Newimpartial's mind, but since you can, does Newimpartial think that the American Academy of Pediatrics is not an authority on this issue? Userwoman (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Since biological sex is the substantive part of definition 3 and Newimpartial opposed it, it makes sense to assume that Newimpartial meant that the term biological sex is outdated. My point is the AAP does not use that term in it's definition. My point is primarily one about the source brought up above. In general we are not here to argue about what individual editors believe but about what the sources in combination with wikipedia policy support.Rab V (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Userwoman (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Although they do use the term sex, and biological sex is just redundant phrasing. Is there such a thing as nonbiological sex? Userwoman (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources that do not use the term "biological sex" cannot be used as authorities for the currency or relevance of that term. Newimpartial (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What is offensive about the term biological? Userwoman (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the criteria for biological sex specifically, and is there one that all transwomen would fall under, and would not conflict with the criteria for "biological women"? ShimonChai (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Biological woman" is probably being used as a synonym for "female human" in this context. A female organism is one that produces ova under normal conditions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake, are you suggesting that childhood and living past the age of menopause are not normal conditions? And are cisgender women of reproductive age who for whatever reason are infertile abnormal? Because it seems to me that using the word normal in such a broad context unavoidably involves making a value judgment. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Normal" can mean something of a type or possesses a specific characteristic so is perfectly applicable here. Not even fertile females produce ova all the time, but if a female never produces ova at any stage of its fertility cycle then I think it is reasonable to describe that as "abnormal". I have no interest in getting into an argument over semantics, however. The point to take away here is that ova is produced by the female and sperm by the male and so we have precise definitions for male and female, and we have precise definitions for "human" as well. "Biological woman" is clearly being equated with "female human" in this discussion; whether it is a good idea to do so (when the unambiguous "female human" could just as easily be used) is another matter. Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

ShimonChai, we are running up against some strange inversions in logic here. First of all, I'm not to say what the criteria of biological sex is, that is not my area of expertise. If you are unfamiliar with the issue, please read up on genetic and anatomic definitions of biological sex. In order for a person to be a trans women, they must have born male. If one cannot say for certain that a trans women was born a male, then how can we be sure that that person is trans instead of cis? In order for someone to change their body from male to female, there must be a way to determine which sex they were and are now with some certainty and accuracy. There's a lot of discussion here that makes sex determination unnecessarily murky. Cases in which sex determination is not clear fall under the category of intersex, not transgender. Also to Betty Logan use the word canonical, rather than 'normal' in these discussions. Userwoman (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I can, and have linked peer reviewed citations that say that intersex people who are assigned male at birth can be transwomen, the same citation differentiates between them, and males as different cohorts. Thus non-biological males, that were just assigned male at birth can be transwomen. My point is that by what criteria is a biological women a biological women? That is just an important question to ask if we are going to use terms like biological. If it is chromosomal, then the term biological would exclude intersex transwomen who might have XX or XXY chromosomes, (and thus would be no longer considered transwomen by our definition, despite medical sources saying otherwise) if it is about reproduction, there are plenty of ciswomen who can't reproduce for various reasons, and we still consider them "biological women". Also, I see what you are saying, and it's exactly why sources have used the term assigned. Transwomen are assigned male at birth, and are transitioning to obtain secondary female sex characteristics. ShimonChai (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons above to exclude the ability to reproduce in definitions, according to this article], there have been 2 two known cases of transgender pregnancy. --John B123 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Trans men (who were born with biologically female parts) can give birth. No one is debating this. You are only repeating what I said above, any transwoman was previously a male. I don't quite follow how intersex people do not have a genetic sex. Regardless of what their anatomy is, everyone either has a Y chromosome (specifically the SRY gene) or they do not. If a person has a Y chromosome they are genetically male. This is not typically debated. In addition, there has to be an understanding that things in the world can deviate from what is canonical, without being a new kind of thing. Humans have two arms is a factually true statement. However, not all humans have two arms. In keeping with this, it would be wrong to say that anyone born with one arm is not a human. What has to be understood is that there is a difference between what is canonical (think Platonic forms) and the things themselves in reality. Canonical women produce ova and can become pregnant. Canonical men do not produce ova nor do they become pregnant. However any given woman may not produce ova or become pregnant (but is still considered a woman). But again, these are not issues for us to answer, we should be looking at what authorities on the subject say. I'm happy to adopt anything about genotypic or phenotypic sex from this textbook.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwoman (talk • contribs)

Plato? What? I don't see SRY mentioned in that 17 year old text you link either. And I think you might find SRY alone is not a sufficient criterion for "male" as demonstrated by the very text you linked in it's explanation of androgen insensitivity syndrome. It seems you're doing WP:SYNTH based on your own views, not views of sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Round three

Comment this is more more of the usual nonsense ill-informed commentary from Userwoman, who insists on applying 1990s definitions of trans sexual people to a discussion of trans gender phenomena in 2018. This is exactly why I keep insisting that the working in the article must be based on sources that are reliable in this domain of expertise and current, preferably by editors who deign to actually read these sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I would rather avoid commenting on any users, but you really seem to go out of your way to single me out. You've already received sanctions for attacking me once, do you really need another warning? And again, where are these updated sources that you speak of? I've already posted 3 current definitions from separate professional organizations. What sources are you using? Post a link to them here.Userwoman (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

When did I "receive sanctions for attacking you"? Could you post a diff? That isn't something that actually happened, I'm afraid. On the other hand, this <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=832089685&oldid=824298271&title=Talk:Trans_man> proposed contribution of yours really did happen. "I here offer a possible new definition

A trans man is a woman who wants to be identified by others as a man."

You've come a long way, user. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Do you remember this ? But seriously, instead of evading my questions, where are all of these sources that you speak of? Userwoman (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't "sanctions", that was just someone sharing with me the same template you had already received.

As far as sources are concerned, many, many have been presented showing that Trans women are not men (your view) and that assigned sex, rather than biological sex, is the relevant term in defining Trans men and Trans women. Hell, your own sources would suffice for this. Although I am still at a loss how you can present a (Neurology) text that distinguishes very clearly between genotypic and penotypic sex, and yet your own contributions run roughshod over this key distinction. For someone who employs the rhetoric of science so systematically, it might behoove you to read what the science actually says, even in textbook form. Newimpartial (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And lest anyone think that Userwoman has dropped the stick on this issues, there is This very recent edit to Woman, again declaring that "the term women has recently been adopted by some males who have a female gender identity". I would love to see what the 2001 neuroscience textbook has to say about that: the statement doesn't look reliably sourced to me, any more than Userwoman's repeated claim - even after sources were produced to the contrary - that "Intersex people can't be Trans" !?

It is this continuous pushing of FRINGE POV by this SPA - without concern for the actual sourcing - that I am reacting to, not to anything personal. It would be much easier to AGF if it weren't for the continuous OR SYNTH and then provision on Talk of sources that don't actually support Userwoman's editorial proposals, in the traditional manner of civil POV pushing. Newimpartial (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, if so many sources have been presented that support the current wording of the lead, then why can't you post them here? They are certainly relevant to the discussion. Post the sources. Userwoman (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources for the content of the lede and for the article have already been presented admirably by others - and they show quite conclusively that Trans women are not considered male, as you believe. I am not going to respond to the constant demands for additional sourcing that are such a key part of sea lion culture. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial then please post a link to those sources. Is this really that hard? You would rather continually evade my request than merely grant it? It seems odd that you would be so hesitant to comply with such a simple request. This only makes it seem like you do not actually have any sources and are hiding behind the assumption that they do exist. As soon as you post the definitions that your sources provide, I am happy to let this go. Userwoman (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I object on principle to offering sources to civil POV pushers, but I suppose every once in a while I should act out of baseless optimism. The best and most recent source on this issue would be Jane Kirby, Fired up about reproductive rights (2018), which offers the consensus definition on a sort of glossary (I find the text in Google books, but not the pagination):

Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth and identify as women.

Now that I have posted the definition from a current, reliable source, you will let this go and strike through all your POV interventions? I am waiting. :P. Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, for someone who has been so exasperating, sometimes you make me so happy. Let's now have a civil discussion on the source that you presented. I did have a chance to look up this book and it does indeed include the sentence that you have posted, there is no questioning that. But who exactly is Jane Kirby? And does she have any authority to speak on this issue? Now in order to find this out, I did a google search on Jane, but I couldn't quite tell which one wrote this book (it didn't quite make any best seller lists). Also, she does not have a Wikipedia page which might point me in the right direction. There are several dieting books written by a Jane Kirby, but that does not seem to be the same Jane Kirby in question. The best description that I could find of the real Jane Kirby was this, "Jane Kirby is a writer and performing artist with a history of working with feminist and social justice organizations. She holds an MA in International Development Studies from Dalhousie University." Unfortunately, this degree program only seems to have one class on gender studies. In addition, her thesis was titled, Navigating Power and Privilege: Examining Activist Solidarity in Resistance to the 2010 Olympics, which is not relevant to transgender issues. I would also like to point out that this book was not written with the intent of clarifying any transgender issues. Per her words in an interview, Fired Up About Reproductive Rights aims to introduce readers to issues of reproductive rights, and particularly issues surrounding barriers to abortion access and coercive sterilization practices. Now let's ask ourselves the real question here, is this a better source that the CDC, the APA, Cornell, ACOG, or the AAP? Perhaps you have another source that you would like to present? Using this source to support the current wording of the lead is obviously flawed. Userwoman (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me why rules of thumb exist: rather than what I had hoped, I received the response I expected; Lucy pulls away the football, and the goal posts are carried away by the sea lions.

So no, I will not "present another source" - you asked, over and over, that I present a sourced definition, and now that I have carefully chosen a source for the lede from the many available, you will not discuss the definition it presents (which would be an improvement on the current version) but instead require that I produce another source. No, and thanks for reminding me why never to negotiate with civil POV-pushers.

What I will do, though, is to discuss the reliable source that I presented. I do not know the author, but I have met people whom have graduated from the same programme, and respect their training especially in gender in an international context. I find it odd that you would expect formal training in gender studies, Userwoman, since I don't think any of the sources you have presented were written by anyone certified in that field. Certainly the OED was not, or not until recently. ;)

Her CV, however, is not why I chose the source. The key is its publication in 2018 by Between the Lines, a publisher with strong traditions of editorial oversight, published with the support of peer-reviewed grants from Canada's granting agencies. Works published in this way are reliable in a sense in which Jordan Peterson's pronouncements on YouTube on tangents to his professional expertise, or late 20th-century neurology textbooks, simply are not in this domain. And this source has the advantage of not being cutting-edge original work on gender, but rather presenting a popularizing, synthetic and accessible glossary of terms in the best tradition of popular writing on social science topics. So the source does exactly what I want - what we need it to do, and I will not be presenting the bigger names that have been working on this definition for the last 20 years just because YOUDONTLIKE this source. #sorrynotsorry

I would also point out that this definition does not conflict in any way with that used by the CDC, APA, etc.; it only offers additional specification. (I am anticipating the typical sea lion move to insist that two sources conflict when one is merely more specific than the other). The logic is this: Woman are "people", probably even "individuals". So in stating that Trans women are women (in line with most other contemporary authorities) Kirby's definition is simply specifying what gender of people Trans women are. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Kirby is not an authority, even if you personally know people who have graduated from the same college as her and want to personally vouch for them. This RFC will close soon and we'll see which definition has the most support. Userwoman (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Kirby's publication is a Reliable Source in this matter because of its circumstances of publication; WP does not assign "authority" to individual authors except in such edge cases as self-published work, as I would expect you to also understand.

Also, consensus is based on policy, not !vote counts, and any closure (besides "no consensus", the obvious choice) will be judged based on how it handled the policy issues. Counting straw votes is strictly irrelevant, as I would hope you to understand, to prevent meat puppeting if for no grander reason. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Kirby is certainly not a reliable source on this subject. She neither has the training nor the position to make these claims. In addition, your idea that an editorial board or government grant supplants academic consensus is simply wrong. You are trying to put words in other people's mouth by equivocating on the word woman. Most sources (including the ones that were used to make the woman wikipedia page) define woman as being a female human (more specifically an adult female human). Some people have repurposed the word woman to refer to a feminine gender identity, which is incompatible with the more accepted definition of woman (you must be able to recognize this). If you seriously think that woman in this situation is being used in a very narrow way, then you must also see that it would be confusing for anyone to know which way it is being used. Also read this, WP:POVFIGHTER, it might apply to you. If you have a multitude of other sources, then just post them here. Why would you hide them from the discussion? The obvious conclusion is that Wikipedia is not to take positions that reliables sources do not take. In addition, there is no reason to prioritize GENDERID (which only applies to individuals) over describing a phenomenon in neutral terms. Userwoman (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have read POVFIGHTER, and have reflected on it, and while I am not a perfect WP editor I certainly have reverted against my own POV when it was procedurally correct to do so (though I admit that I find that challenging at times). I also find that being lectured on POV by an SPA who has been topic-banned from their special topic is pretty freaking hilarious, as interactions go.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with WP sourcing policy, but secondary sources are preferred, popular treatments are often considered the best way to distil an emerging consensus, and the press of a publication is generally the key factor in evaluation, often more so than the author. The fact remains that *no* current, reliable sources take your position (that Trans women are men) while many current, reliable sources take the position of the lede (that Trans women are women) which is also the position (Trans women must be referred to as women) determined at the widely participated RfC on MOS:GENDERID. If Trans women are women individually, they are women collective!y, and if you intend to make some distinction between "being women" and "being referred to as women" the fact remains that neither the MOS decision nor the wider discussion behind it made that distinction. It really seems as though you are trying to overturn the clear result of the GENDERID RfC through an elaborate end-run in a kind of awkward wikilawyering "tag team" with Taylan, TBH. I know of no other editors that have such an investment in the increasingly FRINGE view that Trans women may be people but are not women.

I am also amused again to see the argument that if "woman" means "adult female human" the word cannot also mean "person with a female gender identity", as if using the one definition implied disagreement with the other. Most words have multiple meanings in multiple contexts, and we are currently discussing the lede of an article about a gender identity. It is obvious to me in this context that the relevant meaning of "woman" is as a gender identity, and Kirby's definition is 100% clear on this point. I still feel that nobody who is unable to recognize the context of gender identity should be editing articles about gender identities (or participating in related RfCs), period.

Back to the overall tone of your intervention, I edit on a range of topics motivated by issues of policy, sourcing and procedure much more than by POV issues. There is a weird sort of FALSEBALANCE thing happening when I face ASPERSIONS about POV from a POV SPA account. I don't think you should do that.Newimpartial (talk)

Excellent point about words having multiple meanings. If the only allowable definition is "adult female human", then Wonder Woman is not a woman -- humans are born, not sculpted from clay and given life by greek gods. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And Superman is not a man. I'm happy to let fictional characters be whatever gender they choose. The point about words having multiple meanings would be insightful if the narrow meaning this word referred to was made more obvious. As was pointed out below by DIYeditor, anyone who is more familiar with the term woman referring to a female human will not understand that it is being used here to mean feminine gender identity. Since being a female human and having a feminine gender identity are not linked, these terms must be disambiguated. I find it curious that you are purposely trying to force two distinct concepts into one word, when transgender studies was the whole reason that these two concepts came apart. At no point in the GENDERID discussion did anyone condone using preferences over neutrality when editing articles. I'm sure that Germans Bill Clinton would prefer to have any mention of the Holocaust Monica Lewinsky removed from the page on Germany him, but it just wouldn't be neutral to do so. Trans women are obviously not female humans. Trans women are transgender people with a feminine gender identity. The several major professional organizations that I have cited do not call trans women women. Userwoman (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not move the goalposts again. Nobody has been discussing having a "feminine" gender identity in any discussion on WP's Trans man or Trans woman pages this year; we are talking about female gender identities, or gender identities as female, a.k.a. "woman". If you don't understand the concept of gender identity, then don't edit articles on the subject (whoops, you're already banned from that), don't !vote or debate such topics on Talk, and read recent and relevant sources until you are better-informed and can make a relevant contribution. Also, there was never a time when "woman" was a purely biological term; it was always also social. What has changed in the last 20 years is the recognition of identity as a third, distinct element. And the three are all related in complex ways, which scholarship has only begun too interpret and theorise effectively. Oh, and good job moving us towards Godwin's law. Noice. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You have no standing to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I could have chosen the united states and slavery, but it makes no difference to my point, which you obviously won't address with any kind of seriousness. BTW female is a sex not a gender. Userwoman (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nazi references are not appropriate. Also, a correction: "these two concepts came apart" in academia primarily because of the social constructionist theory piece "Doing Gender" by Candace West and Don Zimmerman, not because of transgender studies as a discipline. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Invoke Godwin or slavery all you want, but there is still a female (not feminine) gender. [[25]] Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether it was gender studies or transgender studies that separated those terms makes no difference. Is there no such thing as sex anymore? I realize from the video below that some people think that even biological concepts are social constructs, but are people seriously proposing that now sex and gender are the same thing? Would it be more accurate to say that trans women are female? Would do you have to say about this Newimpartial? Userwoman (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Userwoman: First of all, you can't ping Newimpartial in a copy edit like that (it either requires a new line+signature, or to link thier user page in your edit summary). Second of all, can you both please just drop your sticks and stop the equine abuse in this discussion section? You both make good points, but at this point are just repeating yourselves over and over. Agree to disagree please. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely Userwoman (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Round four

I support any of these definitions or similar language:

• CDC People who were assigned the male sex at birth but identify as women
• APA People who were assigned male but identify and live as female
• Cornell Individuals assigned male at birth who identify as female

Userwoman (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• QUESTION: Is there a source that would give us a hint as to what trans women and trans men prefer? Individual opinions that present an argument for a particular definition are good but a survey or a statement by an organization would be better. I do NOT want the opinions of anyone who does not consider themselves to be a trans woman or trans man. I know where to find those already. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you want the opinions of professionals or academics? And aren't we to assume that all trans men or trans women have individual preferences? That they are not just a homogenous group with only one opinion? Userwoman (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want the opinions of professionals or academics because I already know how to find those. Also, I am interested in what the preferences of those who will be affected are. As for individual preferences, I was careful to specify "individual opinions that present an argument for a particular definition" without the argument individual opinions are of little use, becaue I don't know if they are representative. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

See https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender. GLAAD's media reference guide is a quality source for journalists and helped the discussion behind our own WP:TRANS?. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! May I assume that GLAAD's media reference guide is generally accepted by the transgender community as opposed to a large number of transgender persons criticizing it? I would assume that this is so, but it would be good too get confirmation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we can safely assume that GLAAD's advice is widely accepted. Since this dispute seems to be a bit on the higher side of Wikipedia drama, however, please (all) note that GLAAD's guide was not written in WP:BRADSPEAK, nor was it written with the goal of withstanding determined rules lawyering. For example, it says "At birth, infants are assigned a sex", which isn't always true: the sex may be identified before implantation in the case of PIGD, mid-pregnancy with various types of fetal testing, or some time after birth if external anatomy is unclear or if pre-birth testing produced contradictory results. The fact that there are slight factual differences in some cases does not change the overall meaning, namely that sex is assigned without regard to the preferences of the person in question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is always true. Sex determined before birth has no legal value, the way birth sex assignment governs birth certificate sex. Furthermore, it is not always correct, in a significant minority of cases. Pre-birth sex determination is merely advisory. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If your idea of "assignment" is limited to recording on a birth certificate – a document that not everyone in the world has, of course, but I think we would still say that a sex was assigned to those people – and if there were no history of birth certificates being submitted without indicating sex (e.g., in the case of an intersex baby), then I would agree with you. But since societies do have extra-legal systems for identifying sex, and since intersex babies do exist and sometimes get a sex assigned on a timeline that is more reasonably described as "after birth" (sometimes weeks or months afterwards) rather than "at birth", I find that I cannot agree with the claim that sex is "always" assigned "at" birth. (Ultrasounds aren't the only kind of fetal testing; for example, the chromosomal testing offered when Down syndrome is suspected will also identify genetic sex.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I very much agree with your distaste of this unclear and euphemistic language, but most of the sources use the subjective phrase "assigned male" rather than more objective "born male." This is something that I would change if I could, but unfortunately, this is the way things are going in the academic world. This is similar to some people's dislike of post-traumatic stress disorder replacing the term shell shock. For a funny commentary on this, see George Carlin. Userwoman (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, the phrase "assigned male" doesn't bother me. I actually think it's a fair description of what happens to some intersex babies, and it's not inaccurate in the case of non-intersex babies. People do assign that label to about half of the babies born each year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've posted a short and neutral notification about this RFC at the talk page of Wikiproject LGBT Studies since several editors there are likely knowledgeable on this topic. Rab V (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• (I am very confused as to where to add new comments in this thread so I will simply say that this comment is not a response to Rab V): I have to wonder if this ongoing discussion is a microcosm of the problem Wikipedia has with retaining editors. What I can say without speculation is that I would not even be here today, had I not been pinged. (BTW thank you for the ping.) I have found being continually thrust into this discussion to be disruptive to the point that I have lost the desire to edit any article. That means no one is reverting the obvious vandalism I would have reverted, and the incoherent sentences I would have made coherent remain incoherent. In other words I am not making edits that anyone with a desire to improve Wikipedia would object to. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 21:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I follow at all. It's not appropriate to ping people involved in a discussion when there is an RfC immediately afterward? Not to do so would be to discount the opinion they already (willfully) gave and which cannot be simply copied over. Nobody is required to participate in anything on Wikipedia that they don't wish to. If you are not doing other work on Wikipedia I think that is purely your choice. And what does "In other words I am not making edits that anyone with a desire to improve Wikipedia would object to" imply? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural Comment I'm tired of this discussion as well, but this is the correct way to get a consensus in favor of something. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - some of the posts on this discussion, and also the previous discussion seem to be WP:UNCIVIL if not WP:PERSONAL imho. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It seems like MOS:GENDERID is pretty clear that Wikipedia represent a person's gender as being the one they self-identify as. Since trans-women, as a group, self-identify as women, to say anything other than that trans-women are women would be a violation of that principle. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  Would we describe a white person as "black" if they identified as such i.e. if they were adopted and grew up in a black family? I honestly don't think we would because that would require a complete refutation of the known facts. Same with being a woman: gender is only one aspect of womanhood. The concept of transgender itself implicitly acknowledges this because if the definition of womanhood began and ended with gender alone then the concept of trans would simply not exist. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  I described how a specific policy in the Wikipedia Manual of Style states we should address the issue of gender and you replied with WP:IDL and some typical right-wing pap about trans people being the same as people who claim to be a different skin colour. First, these two qualities are not the same. Second, trans people are a marginalized group whereas white people are not. Third, and most significantly for this conversation, the Manual of Style is really specific about this circumstance. All I'm doing is arguing that it is equally applicable to a group of people as it is to an individual. Your allusion to white people claiming to be black has absolutely no bearing on MOS:GENDERID. It's irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  You didn't explain it, you gave your interpretation which I believe grossly misrepresents the guideline. All MOS:GENDERID does is stipulate how we should use pronouns to refer to such people: you seem to be arguing that it is a licence to obfuscate facts. GENDERID actually says that when gender self-identification of the subject is not clear we should explain it: in other words Wikipedia should remain factually accurate, but courteous. I made the analogy to transracial people to highlight the absurdity of your point, and I think you are being inconsistent in your approach if you think our coverage of transgender people on Wikipedia should be held to a different standard than our coverage of transracial people. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  Literal quote from MOS:GENDERID: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." - As I said above, my assertion is that this applies to groups of persons as well as individuals. IE: Trans-women as a group should be referred to by the appropriate gendered noun, women, and that should apply to any phase of their life, thus putting a stake through the heart of the M-to-F nonsense. Your obfuscations on "transracial people" are irrelevant to this discussion and I will continue to treat them as irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  And here is my unsourced, OR contribution to this digression: at least 90% of the discussion of "transracial" people over the last decade has served exactly this function: to discredit the recognition of Transgender identities through FALSEPARALLEL arguments accompanied by an implicit (or explicit) genetic reductionism. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  I clearly stated above that "gender is only one aspect of womanhood". It is in fact YOU who is taking a reductionist view of womanhood by refusing to accept that genetics also informs the definition of womanhood. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is still entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  Betty, are you sure you don't share a brain with Userwoman? This is actually the same argument the other account makes below. Which is odd, because I have consistently recognized that genetics can be relevant, just not relevant to the definition of a gender identity. I hold the apparently radical view that words, such as woman, mean different things depending on context, and I have articulated this view consistently since long before this RfC... Newimpartial (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  MOS:GENDERID explicitly does not apply to groups of people: Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned. It is a nice idea to refer to people in the manner they would prefer, but I think the passages from MOS:LEAD that I quoted above in my !vote call for the most comprehensible and neutral phrasing. And after all with option 2 we are not misgendering anyone; I don't think any trans woman objects to being called a person, and the section of GENDERID I quoted also describes such a person as "a person". —DIYeditor (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  I don't see how "a person who... identifies as a woman" is more clear and accessible than, "a woman." Nor do I see how this would violate neutral point of view since, at minimum, the expressed instruction of the MOS is to define any given person by their preferred gender. In short I don't think the argument that, "a person who... identifies as a woman," holds water as being more in line with MOS:LEAD than option 1, and I would hope that consistency with MOS:GENDERID would be sufficient to make option 1 preferable. Otherwise we're effectively saying on Wikipedia that the group of people transwomen are one class (people who identify as women) while every given transwoman is a member of a separate class (women) which is logically tortuous at best. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  The point is, it's unarguably true, whether you believe trans women are women or men. While it might be preferable to identify them outright as women, it's not incorrect to identify them as people, and if it will settle the dispute with something neither side is completely happy with, it's a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think GENERID is a logical necessity because otherwise it would leave each BLP open to constant litigation over what to call the person. It would also be extremely rude to refer to a person as the opposite of what they would like. Here we are not dealing with labeling someone incorrectly; as I said, they definitely are persons. I will quote the most applicable line of MOS:LEAD again because I think it is pretty clear: Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it. It's safe to say a significant number of readers will not be aware that someone who naturally developed only male genitalia and secondary sexual traits (for example) can actually be a woman. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  My issue is a combination of knowing enough transwomen who would really prefer to be identified as women on one hand and the fact that WP:GENDERID specifically instructs Wikipedia to do that. As I said previously, it seems to me deeply illogical to categorize a class of people different from each individual constituent member of that class. If any given notable transwoman is a woman and should be identified explicitly as a woman throughout her biographical information, it follows, logically that transwomen as a class should be identified explicitly as women. There are no constituent members of the group of persons "transwomen" who would not be considered members of the broader group of persons "women" by Wikipedia. It thus follows that if all transwomen are women then the category transwomen is a category of women. I won't deny that I also see this as an issue of justice. I'm sensitive to representing groups of marginalized people in their own words, and my understanding is that transwomen, as a whole, would prefer to be seen as women. However this is a circumstance where established precedent, formal logic and justice coincide. We would literally be creating internally inconsistent policy within Wikipedia in order to compromise with biological essentialists here.Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  It's unfortunate that either "biological essentialists" or trans advocates are personally invested in the outcome of this for any reason other than policy. This should not be an ideological battleground. You did not address: Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's address that. I don't see how "transwomen are women" is dropping people into the middle of the topic. I'd expect the middle of the topic to cover gender theory, the difference between genetics and physical gender expression including how infrequently intersex people are identified at birth as intersex, the systemic barriers faced by transwomen compared to women, relative rates of suicide and depression, etc. There's a lot of material to cover which flows from the identification of transwomen as women. A lede is a place for establishing a the core of the idea detailed below; one would hope the core we establish is that transwomen are women, as in keeping with how Wikipedia, as a body, identifies individual transwomen. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In short, I think you're misinterpreting policy and that my preferred option is clearer, more concise, simpler, and allows for a greater consistency between your cited requirements of WP:LEAD and my assertion that, absent any reason not to, we should apply the concepts of MOS:GENDERID in this case.Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"the systemic barriers faced by transwomen compared to women". That which was to be demonstrated. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

While I don't think this is anything but a digression, the fact remains that Transgendered people face higher rates of physical and verbal attacks than do other LGB people, and considerably more than cishet folx. <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/face-facts/face-facts-lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-and-intersex-people#fn11> is an official summary for Australia, and the Canadian data that I have seen is quite similar.

I do try to AGF, DIYeditor, but your glibly-dropped QED looks to me to be in bad taste, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean "QED" quite in that sense, thats why I said it in English - I did not disagree with the content of that phrase. I meant that Simonm223 had used "woman" in an ambiguous way that left the sentence without a clear meaning. They are comparing (and intrinsically contrasting by my reading) "transwomen" with "women". —DIYeditor (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223, I'm glad that you posted your feelings about this topic. It has been my suspicion that some people here take this issue too personally. From what you have written above, it is obvious that you think GENDERID (which you have stretched to apply to groups) is much more important than maintaining neutrality, objectivity and clarity of the lead. You might feel that this is necessary to do so in order to right past injustices against transgender people. I've be called out by Rivertorch and EvergreenFir for suggesting this before, but I am glad to see someone confirm it. Userwoman (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Userwoman: Where did Simon say they "think GENDERID ... is much more important than maintaining neutrality, objectivity and clarity of the lead"? I'd appreciate not being pinged to have aspersions cast upon me. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

See the above quote by Simonm223, "I won't deny that I also see this as an issue of justice." Userwoman (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That does not match what you claimed Simon said. A better thing to point to would be WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Do not take someone's words and twist them to indicate ill intent. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was a specific policy on that subject, so thank you for pointing it out to me. I also see that WP:POVFIGHTER could certainly apply to some here who continually accuse me of being a POV pusher. Userwoman (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Round five

Simonm223, I have to make a correction about your use of the term "biological essentialism": In feminist theory, gender essentialism refers to the notion that being of the female sex means one bears a spiritual, neurological, or psychological "feminine essence" and is therefore more suited for traditionally feminine roles. Feminists in general and radical feminists in particular have always strongly opposed this notion, and still do. One of the main reasons radical feminists take issue with transgender activists is that the notion of essential/innate "gender identity" that is promoted by transgender activists seems to be more or less a rephrasing of the same gender essentialism feminism has been fighting against for long. See also: feminine essence concept of transsexuality. The term biological essentialism is used less frequently, and could be seen as a generalization of the concept beyond sex/gender. The trans-activist use of terms like "biological essentialism" or "sex essentialism" seems to be an abuse of terminology and an inversion of the original meaning, wherein saying "a woman is an adult human of the female reproductive sex, full stop" somehow makes one an "essentialist" in their view, even though it's an argument against gender essentialism, as stereotypes of femininity are explicitly discarded from the definition of "woman." Taylan (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Genetic determinism" is probably the more apt term, although I have a soft spot for my own coinage, "chromosomal supremacism", just because I like the sound of my own cleverness. ;p

The point, though, in using any of these terms, is that there is an increasingly minoritarian perspective that insists on defining "woman" in terms of chromosomes or genes or "biology" (whatever that is), to the exclusion of everything else used to define "woman" over space and time. Those expressing this perspective seem to have difficulty accepting that theirs is one view among many, and is no longer dominant in the medicine or jurisprudence of the OECD countries. It seems to me that being able to label this perspective is helpful for informal discussions, just ad such terms as "trans-positive" or "anti-racist" can be helpful.

By the way, it's nice to see you back, Taylan. I was afraid you had disappeared. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem that genetics matters. Userwoman (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I see a straw individual of some kind, or maybe what I see is sea lion activity.

Of course genetics "matters" in many ways; it just can't be used to define gender identities (except for the FRINGE minority that would like to make this so, through some combination of force and slight of hand). Newimpartial (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the first google result for "genetic determinism" is the Wikipedia page biological determinism, which seems synonymous to the biological essentialism I mentioned. As I said, it's a generalization of gender essentialism beyond sex/gender, so the relevant concept here really is gender essentialism. And as I've explained above, it's inaccurate to portray the statement "a woman is an adult human of the female sex (full stop)" as gender essentialism; rather, the transgender concept of innate gender identity could be argued to be a form of gender essentialism.

In summary, even if the sex-based definition of "woman" were to exclude some people who have been defined as women in the past, and as such were to be "exclusionary" definitions, the term "biological essentialism" would nevertheless be a wrong description for them.

Anyhow. I challenge your notion that there have historically been people who were considered literal women despite being publicly known to possess male genitals. (From a quick google search, I found this article which states that according to a U.S. survey of nearly 28,000 transgender adults, released in 2016 by the National Center for Transgender Equality, only 12% of transwomen have undergone vaginoplasty, and if I understand it correctly a further 11% had their testicles removed. That leaves us with 77% of U.S. transwomen with intact male genitals.)

I also challenge your notion that the dominant medical definition of "woman/man" has been changing. After being pressed for citations for a long time by Userwoman, you were only able to cite a not-very-well-known book by a not-very-well-known author. (Fired up about reproductive rights by Jane Kirby)

Finally, I don't think anyone here has difficulties accepting that there are alternative definitions of "woman". There clearly are. The questions are whether one definition is dominant (I would argue that the one currently found in most English dictionaries and encyclopedias is), whether the alternative definitions are based on or tied to political perspectives, and if so, whether Wikipedia should be stating them as fact rather than avoiding taking a side. Taylan (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Taylan, I must admit that I am impressed. It is almost as if the goalposts move on their own! How you can shift from gender existentialism as a "spiritual, neurological, or psychological essence" (which is completely compatible with Trans women being essentially women) to point to WP's article on genetic determinism (which implies nearly the opposite) without even acknowledging that the the difference might matter to the person using the terms in this discussion is remarkable, if not admirable. I was talking about a form of genetic determinism - namely the definitional argument that women are defined by their chromosomes - and not any of the forms of essentialism you have introduced into your posts, apparently at random but with great subjective conviction.

When Canadian judges, American gender theorists or New Zealand politicians specify that Trans women are women, why do you insist that they are not being "literal"? Canadian law, for example, is not known for its poetic nature or reliance on metaphor.

Finally, I am not going to play Lucy's citation football with you, either, Taylan; I know better by now. But the definition of "woman" relevant to an article on gender identity is the definition concerning a gender identity. It is as though you were editing an article on card games and insisting that we were referring to "bridge" incorrectly because the dominant definition refers to an engineering constuction. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't know what moving goalposts you're imagining. The original context is Simonm223's misuse of the term "biological essentialism" (and the more general misuse of this term by transgender activists). After that, you seem to have brought in your pet definition of "genetic determinism" to derail the discussion. (And now you've turned it into "gender existensialism"?) To recap my point: gender essentialism refers to the idea that female people possess an essential feminine spirit/neurology/psychology distinct from males, claimed to justify traditional sex roles and stereotypes. Biological determinism is the generalization of that idea beyond sex/gender (e.g. to make a similar claim about black people vs. white people). The statement "a woman is an adult of the female sex" has absolutely nothing to do with either concept.

When legal systems recognize a person as the opposite sex, that is an instance of legal fiction.

Nobody's asking you to play "citation football." You've just been avoiding others' request for citations for weeks if not months, instead dragging discussions in all sorts of directions. (Like suddenly bringing up Canadian law, or claiming that there have historically been male people who were recognized as real women by society.) If you had any reliable/authoritative sources to offer, you probably would have mentioned them instead of Kirby's book on abortion rights. Taylan (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Taylan, the "goalposts" above were initially placed above, by several of us, to note that chromosomal/genetic definitions of "woman" are only one very specific, historically-contingent, minoritarian, and infrequently applied set of definitions, and that to pretend that these definitions are essentially "true" and ought to be applied in all times and places is an extravagant and false claim, regardless of the labels used. So no matter what kind of defense you're mounting in some other crease somewhere about labels, we have amply scored those initial goals.

You also make the very interesting argument that the definitions of men and women applied in the EU, Canada, and other OECD countries are "legal fictions". While fascinating, this is purely OR and really belongs in your book or YouTube channel, rather than this RfC. We will take the legal declarations as not being metaphorical, I think, just as the legal determination that "women" are legally "persons" or that "former slaves" are legally "free persons" were not interpreted away as "fictions" (except perhaps in the excesses of US "Jim Crow" provisions and similar). Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't see anyone above mentioning genetics or chromosomes, or suggesting that "woman" should be defined based on genetics. You seem to be arguing against a straw man, setting up your own goalposts then accusing others of shifting them. Or maybe I missed something because the discussion is massive. Either way, my point stands: saying "a woman is a female adult" is not biological essentialism, saying "women have a female brain" arguably is.

Female birth certificates for biologically male people and vice versa for transmen being an instance of legal fiction is rather obvious, I would think. The first example given on the Wikipedia page on legal fiction is very apt: once a child is adopted, the real parents become legally non-relatives and the adoptive parents legally become relatives, which is reflected in a newly issued birth certificate. But since you prompted me I decided to google it, and indeed found an article by the European Centre for Law and Justice in which gender reassignment is referred to as a legal fiction, as well as a blog article by law firm Berner Klaw and Watson. There is also an article by gender abolitionist transsexual Miranda Yardley and an article by biology research scientist Dr. Nicola Williams (written for Fair Play for Women) which use the term, though you would probably dismiss those two.

By the way, will you stop using this disparaging tone? It's petty, tiring, and probably against some Wikipedia rule that I can't be arsed to dig up. Taylan (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, WP:AVOIDYOU, Ad_hominem Userwoman (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Round six

I feel I may be missing a key aspect here, and I have a hypothetical question for those well versed in gender identity. If a cis male with "traditional male" behavior, dress, appearance, etc. declares that they now identify as a woman but makes no other change, what has made them a woman? In other words, what qualities of a woman are implied by the use of that term in the relevant literature? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here, but I can't think of anyone who takes gender identity seriously (e.g. as a legally protected category, as it is in many countries) but who defines gender identity in terms of a bald assertion. Some claim to the identity besides simply saying so or declaring it on a form is required by pretty much anybody.

So the cisman who filed paperwork to be a "woman" in western Canada to lower his auto insurance, or the ciswoman youtuber who apparently filed paperwork to register a gender change as a "man" in Ontario to protest against legal protections for trans people, do not represent an actual gender identity as "woman" in the first case or "man" in the second. In other words, a real and sincere gender identity is required for legal rights and protections to kick in, as I understand it. Newimpartial (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

DIYeditor, most of your comment seems to presuppose that cisgender men can become transgender women; I do not know of any significant, relevant, recent literature that supports that idea. So I will focus on your last sentence: "In other words, what qualities of a woman are implied by the use of that term in the relevant literature?"

If I understand you correctly, the term you are asking about is "woman". So the answer depends on which relevant authority you ask. Julia Serano (a biologist) and Lori Watson (a philosopher) have different answers to the question. And both distance themselves from appealing to the growing mound of evidence (e.g. the study by Julie Bakker and her colleagues) that trans women are in some respects neurologically closer to cis women than cis men are. In short, there is a growing consensus that trans women are women, but there is no grand unified theory as to why they are women. This is one of the reasons I strongly favor 1 over 3; it hones in on what the experts agree on without making claims about "gender identity" or "biology" that they might not agree on. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 05:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marie Paradox: So by not supporting it you mean the literature denies that a cis man could become a trans woman? Can you point me to the authoritative sources on that? I don't understand why a cis man could not decide he wanted to live as a woman. And do you have any information on a feminist response to a claim that gender roles are in some aspect not by choice, which the position you've outlined seems to imply. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not Ms. Paradox, but if I may: a cis man is defined as a person who was assigned make at birth and holds a male gender identity. So while a cis man could indeed "decide to live as a woman" (to lower his insurance rates, for example, or as part of a cover identity) this would not make him a Trans woman in any sense. Newimpartial (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand the definitions being used here. By what standards are there even discrete male and female gender identities? Would feminists agree with that (and mustn't we consult them on this)? What exactly would it take for a man with male sex traits who dresses, acts and looks "like a man" to transition to a woman? Are we saying here that womanhood involves wearing dresses, having long hair, or being accommodating and demure, or what? Again I think this is very contrary to the modern identity of "woman". —DIYeditor (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that female gender identity=feminine compartment, and I haven't heard anyone say that. Anyway, the discussion of transgender inclusion and gender identity has taken place largely within feminism, so I don't see why feminists would "need to be consulted". The vast majority of those affirming that Trans women are women are, in fact, feminists and supporters of feminism, while those opposing Trans inclusion are largely antifeminist.

I have offered "a sincere gender identity" as a relatively uncontroversial standard; I really don't know what more you want, since already that seems to rule out the vast majority of troublesome or edge cases by excluding cis men who would claim to be women for purposes of insurance rates or access to housing without actually holding a gender identity as a woman. I also don't think this has anything at all to do with the RfC, except that you don't understand gender identity, in which case I don't understand why have you formulated an RfC about the lede of an article about a gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, "sincere gender identity makes someone a woman" makes sense after we've discussed it, but the question is how is the reader who has heard of a woman before, but never a trans woman, going to read the introductory sentence. Are they going to understand that that is a specialized use of "woman" rather than the one they may have in mind? So we are forcing them to click on "woman" and read the entire lead (at least) to understand the first sentence of this lead? I'm not sure that is in keeping with the three elements of MOS:LEAD that I cited. By demanding expertise in this topic to determine the best way to phrase this sentence, I think you are basically agreeing that one may need to be an expert to understand it. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

DIYeditor in short, yes. According to transgender activists, an apparently genuine declaration of one's own "inner felt gender" is literally the only requirement to be considered a real transwoman/transman and as such a real woman/man. That is also the direction legal systems are being pushed and in part have already successfully been pushed; see for instance the law in Canada or in Sweden, or the proposed changes to the U.K. Gender Recognition Act (GRA) and the political group A Woman's Place UK which was founded to hold these proposed changes up to scrutiny. And as Newimpartial mentioned above, there have already been instances where people have obviously gamed the system, be it to prove a political point (Lauren Southern apparently legally became a man in Canada), to get a lower price on car insurance (again in Canada), or to get sexual access to women in prison (last month in the UK). Apparently about 40% of UK trans inmates are in for sexual offences, which might be a symptom of a trend among sex offenders to "pull the trans card" as a variation of pulling the "mental illness" card. I've seen a statement by prison authorities before, on this being a known problem for a long time (even before the current social/legal changes brought by transgender activism), but I can't find a link to that right now.

Anyhow, apart from these cases where people very obviously game the system, there are also many prominent cases where a male person declares themselves a transwoman despite retaining very obviously male features, and widely gets taken seriously. Some examples: Alex Drummond likes to don a full beard. Danielle Muscato infamously tweeted "some women have a penis; if you can't accept that, you can suck my dick" (paraphrased) on International Women's Day 2017, while still very much looking like a regular man. Gabriel Squailia wrote an article entitled "How Eyeliner Defines My Womanhood" with photos of themself published, which see. Riley J. Dennis has argued that "biological sex is a social construct" and has been an out transwoman for a long time before starting hormone replacement therapy at some point. Travis Alabanza is a "trans femme" identifying person who looks like a regular male person in feminine attire, and successfully lobbied Topshop to change their dressing room policy after they hindered Alabanza from using the female dressing room.

Yes, it's all very, very bizarre. Maybe this will help a few people better understand why many feminists are up in arms about this whole thing. (Though I haven't even mentioned topics like "transgender children", lesbians being coerced to consider "women with penises" as potential sex partners, etc., as they're not immediately relevant to your question. Well, maybe the one about lesbians is. The logic is straightforward: trans women are women, lesbians are women attracted to women, ergo, trans women are by definition part of the dating pool of a lesbian, completely regardless of anatomy. Oh and yes, many transwomen are attracted to women, apparently at least 60%.)

I swear I'll write a book on this one day. Taylan (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Taylan, if you do write a book, I'd advise you to lead with your prejudices: it will be much more honest and more interesting that your attempts to don the mask if neutral POV, where the mask will never quite stay in place. Just on your posts today you have constructed a slippery slope argument from the percentage of Trans women who have penises, to "many feminists" being up in arms (where? Not in Quebec where the leader of the national femiNist organization is a Trans woman), to whether a Trans woman is really a Trans woman if she has a beard or hasn't started hormones, to people gaming the system in order to score political points, and commit crimes like fraud and prison sexual assault. An apparently earnest editor asked what makes a valid gender identity, and you offer all the breadcrumbs required to imply that there is no such thing, and unless she's transsexual she's not a woman and is probably a sex offender as well. Start editing with those prejudices in mind and you could earn the same topic ban as Userwoman. I'd suggest a book or a YouTube channel might be more enduring for you. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Taylan, the video by Riley J. Dennis was extremely enlightening and shows just how delusional some people can be. Riley is obviously confusing how we know what a thing is with what a thing actually is. Riley goes on to say that all secondary sexual characteristics can be changed and therefore if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then sex is a social construct. Unfortunately a stuffed animal duck that quacks can look like a duck, quack like a duck, but is not a duck. I can obviously tell that Riley was born male because of the adam's apple, which shows that sex is not a social construct. Not everything is a social construct and relative as the postmodernists would have us believe and the sophists before them. There is Truth with a capital T. Userwoman (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment who needs genetic determinism when you can have Adam's apple determinism, eh what? Send in the clowns. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

TaylanUB, Userwoman: It seems like you are going by personal opinion and discussing the merits of the topic, rather than analyzing Wikipedia policy with regards to it. You should not be labeling views "bizarre" or "delusional" here. Please keep in mind that this is a sensitive topic and that using such labels can be distressing to people with gender dysphoria and their allies (which I would like to count myself among). I was only looking for details about these definitions to see if the logic being used was understandable, and to see if there were inconsistencies in what was being presumed to be consensus in the fields of gender identity and feminism. In other words are we tossing the reader into the middle of a big confusing dispute that is not coherently settled by using "woman" in this way without explanation. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(comment repositioned to clarify flow of dialogue) DIYeditor, do not forget that people who have been affected by sexism can in turn feel significant distress when faced with sexist ideologies. I for instance developed chronic depression in connection with sexist expectations placed upon male people. I did not think the term "bizarre" would cause offense, though I have no problem avoiding it in the future. If we're going to be so sterile in our tone and wording however, then I would seriously ask for Newimpartial to stop it with the constantly disparaging/mocking attitude, such as repeatedly calling me and others prejudiced, saying things like "I'd suggest a book or a YouTube channel might be more enduring for you" (i.e. "go away, I don't want you around on Wikipedia") or talking about "adam's apple essentialists"... Taylan (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@TaylanUB: How exactly does the, eh, bizarre topic of anti-male sexism relate to this RfC? I'm sorry you developed depression but this is not a personal gender issues battleground. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I would call it sexism's collateral damage on men rather than "anti-male sexism", but anyhow. I was simply pointing out that different people may be personally hurt in all sorts of ways from the effects of sexism, and have conflicting ideas or "triggers" on what counts as a verbal offense. Someone who has gender dysphoria or has people close to them with gender dysphoria and believes in gender identity theory may feel offended by gender abolitionist ideologies that contradict gender identity theory. Similarly, someone who has suffered extensively under gender essentialism and came to a gender abolitionist consciousness (including detransitioners) may feel offended by gender identity theories that are arguably in part gender essentialist. I think that, among both parties, people who cannot tolerate the distress caused by a blunt debate on such topics might be best served by distancing themselves from such debates. It would be unfair of them to stick around and yet police the language of others because they don't have the mental fortitude needed to handle strong ideological conflict. Anyway, I will gladly stick to a respectful tone so long as everyone involved in the debate does so. Taylan (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I think that there are fringe ideas on both sides. (That sex is a social concept is one of them, isn't that what the term gender is for?) Some of these ideas don't even pass the smell test for being reasonable and certainly don't have any academic consensus to support them. I do struggle with the idea that wanting to maintain neutrality makes me or Taylan offensive or an enemy of people with gender dysphoria. We are here to objectively evaluate sources, some of which I have provided and some of which Taylan has provided. Few reliable sources have been presented to support the current wording of the lead, although I have asked Newimpartial several times. If nothing else, this article should reflect reliable sources as closely as possible while maintaining clarity for readers. Userwoman (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet the only sources either of you have provided from the last 15 years do not conflict with the current version of the lede but do conflict with your own deeply seated prejudices beliefs. I almost begin to suspect an eeh,laborate false flag operation. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That has certainly been your opinion. Userwoman (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Userwoman: both men and women can have prominent larynxes. I'm not sure what you and TaylanUB hope to accomplish by going broad and delving in to your own theories on postmodernism, "gaming the system", or the silent plague of "lesbian coercion", but it is irrelevant to this discussion, and it's going to make it really hard for other editors to take you seriously in this topic area going forward. Nblund ^talk 16:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"Adam's apple determinism" may be a good jibe, but it is actually on an elaborate assessment of secondary sexual characteristics that most of the human population uses the words 'man' and 'woman' on a daily basis to refer to other humans they see around them - or speak to on the phone. Sure, presentation can sometimes confuse or mislead - maybe that's a slim, short kilt-wearing Scotsman I'm standing behind in the queue. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's OR again. Absent of scholarship, there is no reason to think people use "secondary sexual characteristics" more than they do social cues. The question of voice, for example, is exemplary in this regard (e.g. the scene in the Canadian film, I think it's The Five Senses, that turns on the luscious mezzo voice coming from the next apartment that turns out to be Daniel Taylor) - the socio-cultural and the physiological are layered to give us "male", "female" and "androgynous" voices, with a good deal of overlap among the categories. So to with the rest of our cues. Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Newimpartial. Also, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the lede of this article at all aside from providing cover for some WP:NOTHERE accounts who won't put down their WP:STICK regarding their refusal to define people according to their preferred gender and / or to push their fandom for Canada's most tendentious, "academic." Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course we can be mistaken in our assesments of either physical characteristics or behavioural clues - but we rarely are, otherwise we would abandon the practice. I've read pages of discussion here, on a subject which I happily admit to knowing little about - I would claim that this places me closer to a 'typical' reader, who finds this subject difficult to understand, but who sincerely wishes to understand sympathetically. The question of whether a trans woman is a woman seems valueless in isolation. In some contexts they obviously are, including self-definition and wish/right to be treated as such legally and socially. In other contexts they are not (including legally in the UK iro certain rights) such as competitive sport and reproductive function. Newimpartial says elsewhere that words can have different meanings in different contexts - of course they can, but to use words in ways that do not make the context explicit (in text), and which are not the historically most common usages, seems perverse. We may have to do that in a philosophy article, but why would we choose to do it here? No one has come up with a single source that states that the most common use of the word 'woman' across the English speaking world is self-identification. It may be a common use among professionals in relevant disciplines and the article may need to explain discipline-specific terminology and attitudes in order to be fully informative, but to expect an uninformed reader to understand that "is a woman ..." refers to self-image rather than 'given' anatomical construction in the opening sentence, is unreasonable - it confuses rather than clarifies. Whether it is PoV to say "is a woman ...", seems fairly academic, it's needlessly confusing. The proper place for discussion of that subject is within the body of the article - where yes, I agree with Userwoman and others, the view from some people (including some feminists who are sympathetic) that trans women are distinct from 'born' women, is a perfectly valid point of view. The essence of what a trans person is, AFAI can see, is that as a new-born, or very young child, someone other than themselves, based probably on genital examination alone, thought that they were clearly one sex - and thus would probably develop that gender identity, but they had a profound sense at some point that they were - and wished to be accepted as something other. Why anyone would think that it is inherently weasel-ly to say that a trans person 'identifies with' gender X, rather than 'is' gender X, is beyond me as the only way we have of defining a cisgender person, is that they accept (ie identify with) their 'given' gender. Why is the second not also questioning the legitimacy or depth of the identification, but the first is? Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone given sources that explicitly state cisgender women are women? Cis womens' gender identity is never questioned though. This whole thing seems pointless given that "trans woman" already identified them as women. Woman is a noun. The adjective modifying that noun (cis, trans, old, brunette, etc.) doesn't change that. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The term 'cisgender women' - which is a word the majority of the population of the Anglosphere neither use nor understand - is a neologism to describe anatomical women, who feel no difficulty in identifying as women - even if they object strongly to the social constraints and expectations of being women. So it is hardly surprising that no one questions a word specifically invented to describe the most common human situation - having no fundamental feeling of conflict between what one anatomically is, how the world sees one, and how one sees oneself. The second part is purely semantic, a white elephant is not a pachyderm, a peanut is not a nut - and I'm surprised that you place such profound matters as "born" woman or "trans" woman - both of which I am happy to believe go to the very heart of who a person is - alongside "brunette" woman. Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you prefer I have examples of other social construction labels with profound impact like "Black woman" or "disabled woman"? Still women. It is disingenuous to try to compare this to "peanut". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Black women, Caucasian women, Asian women, disabled women, able-bodied women, tall women, short women, fat women, thin women, lesbian women, and straight women, are all of the female sex, and as such they are literally women, and this was/is also the case in times of society-wide racism, xenophobia, homophobia, or discrimination against the disabled. Transwomen simply fall out of the literal definition of women, which is neither a result of transphobia, nor a justification for it. Taylan (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Some definitions of 'woman'. It depends how the reader is defining 'woman'. Still, this creates a clarity issue for some of our readers, which is enough for me to oppose Option 1. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Round seven

Taylan, in asserting without evidence that the category "black women" includes black cis women but not black trans women you are assuming the thing that you set out to prove. Please look at all the various "Ain't I a woman?" interventions for context; they simply do not group themselves (not so their audiences group them" into "literal" and "figurative" arguments, as you are constantly trying to force us to in this long, tiring RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC) fixed red link; by Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the burden of proof is on you when you claim that the phrase "black women" includes people of the male sex. I don't understand what you mean with the "Ain't I a woman" reference, or what you're trying to say in the rest of that sentence, apart from the WP:SEALION accusation that you've been repeating. (After looking into that page, I think it's rather the behavior of the "pro-trans" editors (for lack of a better term) that fits into that pattern. See e.g. my user-page for documentation of such behavior over a long time.) Taylan (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to answer the big question here except to point out that the definition I have cited as best practice includes both "is" and "identifies". What I would point out, though, is that the most common use of "woman" matters to Woman, but the use that matters to a gender identity article is woman as a gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:the use that matters to a gender identity article is woman as a gender identity That's OK, as long as you are happy to accept that large numbers of readers (I include myself) are going to have no idea what the article's opening sentence actually means - because their understanding of 'woman' is based on biological manifestations, not self-identity ones. I don't in the least object to having 'prejudices' challenged - in the sense that a prejudice is the understanding one brings to an article, that is part of why one reads any article, whether the subject is Islam or whatever. I do however object to phrasing that requires me to abandon my understanding of a common word - that I've been hearing and using probably every day, for my whole life in a particular way, before I can even understand the opening sentence. That's my last word on the subject. Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect readers to click on a link for Woman to inform themselves (from the first paragraph of the linked article) that the term refers to a gender identity, and also gender roles, as well as anatomy - if they had not thought about the issue before, which I suspect most of our readers have anyway. The fact is that "Trans woman" and "Trans man" are terms that emerged in specialized discourses, and the job of WP is first to reflect the discourse accurately, not to guess what our readers are most likely to assume. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Saying we should drop our readers into the middle of the subject from the first word of the lead is exactly contrary to MOS:LEAD. To me that is the only relevant argument here - if a significant number of readers won't understand this usage of woman, there is no harm in using a term they will understand - person. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but if there were a technical subject "widget wheel" where wheel meant axle, we wouldn't say "a widget wheel is a wheel that..." when the reader might reasonably understand it to be an axle. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I object to your imaginary example. :p. If we had, by contrast, "Undead are corpses that have come back to life" as our lead, I can't imagine people arguing that because some of are readers might assume certain characteristics about corpses (inert, can't be reanimated) that therefore we have to use some other term in the lede. Sometimes WP might use "corpse" in the more restricted sense of "actually existing dead body", and sometimes in the broader sense of "dead body that could possibly be reanimated", and we can trust our readers to figure this out. Similarly, we might sometimes use woman in the restrictive sense of cis woman and sometimes in the broader sense that includes trans women, and as long as we give the appropriate links and explanations we can continue to comply with GENDERID and keep our articles up-to-date. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The Woman article says "A woman is a female human being" the female link says "able to produce ova" - somewhere in all that it has been recently added that 'woman' can also refer to gender identity (though that is not in the article, only the lead and the ref attached to the claim doesn't actually say that woman can refer to one's identity, it says "gender identity refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as [man] or [woman], or some combination thereof," ie it defines 'gender identity' not woman ), so "follow the link" isn't very helpful. BTW, I was about to add that my "last word" comment above was for the simple practical reason that I'm off on holiday tomorrow. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph of Woman is in the Biology and sex section, which is not ideal but it is not easy to reach consensus for change in that article. Similarly, the wikilink for "female" in the opening sentence of Woman probably does more harm than good - a rare case where a disambiguation page might be more enlightening - but again I have hesitated in removing that link because I don't want to provoke an edit war, and haven't been able to interest enough editors yet in giving Gender identity its own section, which seems like a higher priority. If anything, Trans woman or Sex assignment are models of accuracy and conceptual clarity compared to Woman. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC) (fixed typo in link: Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• The primary concern, as I see it: 'identifying' a transwoman as "a woman" or as "a person" seems to be one of clarity and cognitive dissonance rather than one of sources. Some readers will understand that woman here is referring to "anyone self-identifying as a woman" (particularly readers from western backgrounds, or readers that understand the topic well). Other readers will see it with cognitive dissonance and be confused by the opening sentence, (particularly users from a non-western background, or those who are new to the topic). This phrase "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" also has an alternate meaning to anyone that doesn't understand 'woman' to be a self-determined (i.e. "A cis-gendered and outwardly female-identifying person (XX chromosomed, ovum producing, long haired, dress wearing, baby carrying, etc.) who was mistakenly identified as male when she was a baby.")^{absurdly over-defined for clarity}. If you don't think that the sentence will sometimes be read this way, I posit that your euro-centrism is blinding you from it; but that doesn't mean that some people won't read that sentence that way.

Even if sources on the topic generally refer to trans women as 'women', we are under no obligation to do the same if we are trying to improve clarity. Also, in terms of definitions: last time I checked "a woman" was also "a person", so there should not be anything wrong with saying "A trans woman is a person", particularly if it avoids the cognitive dissonance and confusion issue. It seems fairly Eurocentric to confusingly define a transwoman as "a woman assigned male at birth" for the above reasons, but it also seems needlessly confusing that we are using woman here in a self-referential way to refer back to trans women (essentially as part of the definition we are trying to reassure the reader that "yes trans women really are women"): and regardless of where you fall in that argument, surely everyone must agree that the definition shouldn't be defining 'woman' to include 'trans woman', while simultaneously trying to define 'a trans woman' as 'a woman'; as this becomes essentially circular. I'm sorry if this is a bit rambling or confusing, but defining the topic itself is confusing, and we should not be confusing readers further by inserting Eurocentrism into the first sentence definitions of the lead. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That we are even discussing gender as a binary (man/woman) is very eurocentric given that many societies don't have this cultural system. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware, I lived in Tonga for a year, and Fakaleiti is common enough that people there don't refer to there being only two genders. I realise that your response is essentially sarcasm, but it is misdirected. My point is that we should be making a definition that is clear regardless of whether you come from a society with multiple recognised genders, or where only two genders are formally or informally known. Don't we want these people to understand the topic? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering how widespread the slogan "hijras are women" is in India (do a Google Scholar search for "hijras are women"), a country that has nearly a billion more citizens than the US, I am not at all convinced that saying "trans women are women" is Eurocentric or outside non-Western people's realm of experience. (I am not asking for an off-topic discussion of whether hijras are women here. My point is simply that nobody in the relevant non-Western social context understands "hijras are women" to be an indication that hijras are cis women.) -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 15:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

do fakaleiti identify as trans women? merely being male and "[behaving] in an effeminate manner", as stated in the article, does not automatically make someone a trans woman—that is eurocentric. —mountainhead / ? 14:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea, but my comment was with regards to third genders, I didn't refer to them as trans women. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mountainhead: "I also firmly believe trans women should be described as women first and foremost, since the only real authority on one's gender is the person themselves" - this is exactly the issue we are trying to establish. Who is the authority on whether gender or sex is observed or is a self-affirmation, and whether "woman" generally means a sex, or a gender? For the sake of argument, if a group of people thought they were dogs would we say they are indeed dogs because they have identified as such? Would we say that in the article about furry fandom? Not to trivialize the issue of gender but I think the comparison is relevant. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's an entirely irrelevant and offensive comparison. Unless you can point to something in the MOS:CANINEID guideline that supports your position. Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is explicitly about BLPs and "a person", not groups of people being described neutrally. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I will say that I can see it being desirable 1) to have a consistent policy regarding honoring the wishes of people about how they are identified and 2) to use terminology consistent with the topic of the article. The question is whether it's confusing. If option 2 is less confusing I don't think there is any good argument against it then - the lead being the least confusing is the ultimate goal. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In other words let me sum this up: a person who knows a trans woman is a woman will not be confused by option 2 but a person who does not know that may be confused by option 1. I think we should choose the option that covers both circumstances. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok I see something here. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia so I guess the question is whether the target reader will be confused not whether some readers will be. Does someone with a high school or better level of understanding generally comprehend that "woman" might mean something other than someone with female sex traits - potentially someone with male sex traits (as far as these are clearly defined of course - which is also a question about the Wikipedia reader's understanding). —DIYeditor (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a clear false equivalency, and this discussion is getting far too forumy. Please stop with comparing tran-swomen to furries and dogs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure you read all of what I wrote before you responded here. I am trying to work toward a resolution of this topic, since I am not decided on which option I support. What I see is that option 1 has strong arguments in its favor. It doesn't matter much because I think this is looking like a clear no consensus but I am trying to discuss what I see as relevant to the best lead. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

look, I get the point you're trying to make, but at the same time we're getting dangerously close to "I identify as an attack helicopter" territory.

I also addressed the fact that this could be personal bias (since I am a trans woman). it's my opinion. however, you can't prove someone's gender, and I'm not sure who else you can rely on to tell you than the person themselves, since they are the only one with access to their own brain. —mountainhead / ? 14:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to get into the legitimacy of the attack helicopter troll/analogy as far as I know about it. What it comes down to for me is that identifying trans women as women is how they are referred to in the field of gender studies, it is understandable to a person of average intelligence that woman in this sense might mean something other than a person with female sex traits, and it is already a goal of Wikipedia to respect gender identity. —DIYeditor (talk)

(replying to DIYeditor): I differ with you on a couple of points. You say that a person who knows a trans woman is a woman will not be confused by option 2 but a person who does not know that may be confused by option 1. I suspect that a person who knows a trans woman is a woman may well be confused by the lead sentence failing to note that she's a woman. I don't see that anyone, regardless of whether they know that or not, would be confused by option 1. The only possible confusion arising from option 1 that seems likely to me would occur with readers who don't know what assigned means, and that would be equally likely to happen with option 2, which also uses that word. You also say that the lead being the least confusing is the ultimate goal but I'm not sure that's true. Give me five minutes and I'll find at least a dozen articles (about math and physics, for instance) whose lead sentences leave me utterly baffled. I think that one must assume that some readers will inevitably be confused by the lead sentences of certain articles, and that they must be willing to read further down the page—and sometimes even jump to other articles—to even begin to make sense of what they're reading. I don't disagree that clarity should be a goal, but I believe that accuracy should be the primary goal. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have long history of familiarity with the term and I was honestly confused by option 1 the first time I read it, and I'm only able to reinterpret it because I already know what the term means. Basically, the current version seems confusing because if you're using a common usage of the word woman it seems to be saying a trans woman is a biological female who was mistakenly thought to be a biological male at birth. It seems to be saying the wrong sex was spoken aloud by a dumb midwife or doctor at birth who said "it's a boy" when really female anatomy was present. Choice 1 seems confusing because it gives no indication of the mismatch between gender identity and sex in transgender persons. DynaGirl (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

that's honestly the vibe I've always got from phrases like "assigned male at birth". it sounds like a doctor pointed at a newborn baby girl and said "nope, you're a boy now".

these terms, however, are standard queer jargon at this point and are even beginning to go mainstream. they are understood to mean "woman born as a biological male, yet still a woman" by more people than "a person born male who identifies as a woman", even though they basically mean the same thing. —mountainhead / ? 18:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, they are WP:JARGON, which we are meant to avoid whenever possible to avoid confusing readers who are not aware of the definitions being used. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Not WP:JARGON as demonstrated in the !vote above. The "assigned" language is widely used by professional orgs, government outlets, and mainstream media. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of the terms used at General relativity are widely used by professional orgs, government outlets, and mainstream media too. That doesn't mean that laymen understand them without further explanation. Its still jargon even if used widely by professionals and should still be avoided if possible. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst there is no reason inaccuracy should be introduced for simplicity in the lead, accuracy and accessibility need to be balanced. Pyecombe is described in the article as being "located 7 miles (11 km) to the north of Brighton". It would be far more accurate to describe it as being "located at 50.89883°N 0.16394°W", but this would give little idea of the location to most people. Accuracy is therefore not the primary goal in the lead, although the exclusion of inaccuracy is a pre-requisite. Whether "assigned" is jargon or not is irrelevant. There are a number of posts in these discussion pointing to "assigned" having a significant difference in meaning in common usage to the narrow, specific meaning as used by professions on this subject. The use of "assigned" in the lead actually decreases accuracy due to the ambiguity of meaning, as well as decreasing accessibility. --John B123 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The term "assigned male at birth", however, is wikilinked to an article that provides a good, accurate, and reliably sourced explanation of the term, which is much less complex than the comparator terms at General relativity. Can we not assume that readers puzzled by an unfamiliar usage will click on the wikilink, rather than remaining confused? If not, why not? Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is more ambiguous. It is a parsimonious phrase describing a medicosocial phenomenon. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Clicking on the link to woman, the reader is probably more likely to decide that transgender women were born female rather than born male (or intersex), and that the doctor just made a mistake (second deffinition issue). Transgenderism discussed in that article is one short sentence in the lede "A woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity,[1] or an intersex person (someone born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)."), This sentence is so ambiguous that it could refer to trans men or trans women, and the reader might equally read it as "trans men should be considered women". There is also a short bit in the body which fails to offer any clarification on how we might be using 'woman' in this article. The idea that a reader confused by 'woman' might click the link to be clarified is ridiculous, as the reader is likely to come to the opposite conclusion after doing so. Not only does woman not definitively state that trans women are women, but even if it did it would not help with defining it in this sentence, as both possible understandings of the word would be present at the target link. As far as 'assigned' goes, the link is much better at helping to define the use of the word in our sentence, and I have less objection to 'assigned' (though I would prefer something that doesn't require the reader to navigate away, there seems to be few alternatives). Option 2 avoids this issue entirely. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Clicking on assigned male at birth will fix that. It seems quite a leap to suggest readers will somehow read the opposite of what's said. The lead of woman clearly states that it refers to gender identity as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, clicking on that link doesn't seem to help all that much because assigned male at birth currently links directly to a one sentence subsection, which says this involves an out loud declaration of "it's a boy" by doctor or midwife. I think linking to the actual article of Sex assignment seems more informative because the top of the article explains that this is based on genital examination. Option 1 links to the article subsection of assigned male at birth while option 2 links to top of the article of Sex assignment, which I think does more to explain the topic, especially to readers not already familiar with the topic. Another concern with respect to links and clarity is that option 1 does not include a link to Gender identity which seems rather important to understanding this topic, while option 2 includes link with text identifies as a woman.DynaGirl (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"assigned male at birth" is needlessly jargon-y. While it might be apt to link to another article explaining more fully the process or ramifications of 'gender assignment', a perfectly simple natural English phrasing would be "identified as male at birth" - piped to the more 'technical' article perhaps. This is an easy to understand description of the process undertaken at birth - a quick look at the rudimentary genitals. In ordinary usage, one might be assigned a cot in the maternity hospital, assigned to a particular ward, nurse or paedietrician, assigned a hospital number - but not assigned a gender - which, while it might be the technical name for the process, suggests "I'm sorry Mrs Jones, we've only got boys left today". Why use a technical term when simple English allows for an accurate and readily understood description of what we all understand happens at 99.9% of births? Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Insert arrow here). Pincrete, the problem is that "identified" is either misleading, or is subject to exactly the same "difficulty" as "assigned". Either the process is assumed to be entirely passive / reflective of "biology" - which is misleading - or it is understood as a socially active task of "identification" - which is what the reliable scholarship declares is happening - in which "assignment" is probably a less ambiguous term. Given the availability of wikilinks, I don't see any sense in which the proposed change is better than the term the sources actually use. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that the wikilinks need work, but I don't think the wikilinks strategies are inherent to either option. I would prefer dropping the Woman link entirely at the current state of that article, but including appropriate links to both sex assignment and gender identity. (This relates to my statement above proposing a slightly longer phrase than option 1, where gender identity is referred to explicitly-that would provide a good anchor for the link.) Newimpartial (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to close

• Request to close - This discussion has continued to go around in circles. The main participants in the discussion are entrenched in their views (which is not meant as a criticism), so the discussion could go on for the next 5 years without substantial agreement. New editors coming here from say rfc, would probably give up reading part way through. The discussion has therefore reached the end of its useful life. I propose the straw poll and discussion be closed and the straw poll analysed. The lead of the article can then be changed or not as appropriate, a line drawn under this and we can all get on with our lives. --John B123 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Or wait either one is fine. Userwoman (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Weak support I feel that some of the most productive discussion I have seen here has taken place during the past day or so. But I concede that for much of it we have been walking along well-trod paths. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 23:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I am still on the fence here and am considering changing my !vote to a comment explaining that I think both positions hold water. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever the state of this dumpster fire of a threaded discussion, the RFC hasn't yet been open two weeks, far from the standard month before closing. Additionally, people are continuing to respond, and the survey is in general good order, with most respondents politely and succinctly explaining their position. I see no reason to close this early. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but wait – (edit conflict) there is no movement in this discussion, merely tit-for-tat, and it's going around in circles, or rather, in boustrophedon. That said, given DIY's and Red Rock's comments, I support waiting for at least the two-week point. If nothing changes before then, I vote for a no-consensus, but let's see what happens, for a bit longer. About closure timing, see When to close discussions. Procedures for formally requesting a close are here. I would, however, request that this be an admin-closure only, due to its sensitive nature, and to the fact that the topic falls within ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's only been 10 days since the poll was opened, it feels like its been much longer! I have no objection to waiting provided an end-date is set, say 6th September - the standard month. Having a fixed end date may focus some of the editors involved. Mathglot's request for admin closure gets my full support. I don't see any other realistic alternative. --John B123 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it feels like a long time because the discussion has been going on for a long time, just this particular RFC is recent. -sche (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, particularly controversial RFCs (and RMs, etc) are closed by panels of three users or three admins (e.g., the RM that renamed the article on Chelsea Manning), to help ensure that the closure isn't influenced by just one person's views/preferences. Is that something we want to request here? (I don't have strong feelings one way or the other although it the idea of suggesting it has clearly been on my mind, since I see I already suggested it above, ha. But I agree with requesting admin rather than non-admin closure, in any case.) -sche (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I know, doesn't it? We could have a side-survey about how long it feels like (sort of an "Rfc drag index", like the Heat index): I vote, "A month". (Jk, jk; it's a joke! please no drag-votes; let's not side-track this!) Mathglot (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fun trivia: the Rfc survey and discussion (not including the Request to close section) is 134,519 bytes (341 paragraphs; 23,176 words) as of this moment. If it were an article, it would be well into size split territory. On the other hand, this is nowhere close to the longest Rfc (464kb), so come on folks, we have a long way to go yet to get into record territory. We now resume our regularly scheduled arguing. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps like long articles, this RfC should be "split" into only the top 2 choices, in the event that there no clear consensus, which seems possible. While this RfC seems a good summary of prior NPOVN discussion points, it does contain an awful lot of information and it seems if it were split into only 2 choices it might be more simple and perhaps show clearer consensus. DynaGirl (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This section is about closing the Rfc. If you want to propose an alteration of it, or another Rfc, please do so in the discussion thread above, and not here. The Rfc was opened on 6 August, and could theoretically run another two weeks. But participants can also agree to end it at any time. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As it has been a month (and legobot just removed the RfC template as expired), and participation has died down, I left a request on WP:ANRFC for an admin to close this. -sche (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a Herculean, and thankless, task. Remembering that everyone here is a volunteer, closing admins are donating their time on a complex and contentious issue; I think everyone here can agree on that. So I just want to say "Thank you" in advance, to whoever agrees to take this on, whatever the final result. And also to everyone who participated. Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Tags

Given the newly minted consensus, I'm removing the 'POV' tag from the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing the body in the lead

The article is currently tagged for improvement because the "lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents". Here is an attempt at summarizing the parts of the article which are not currently summarized in the lead:

Trans women may experience gender dysphoria and may transition, especially by hormone replacement therapy and sometimes sex reassignment surgery, which can bring immense relief and even resolve gender dysphoria.

Trans women may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or none of the above.

Trans women face a vast amount of discrimination (termed transmisogyny, a subset of transphobia), including in employment and access to housing, as well as physical and sexual violence and hate crimes, including from partners (especially cisgender men); discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color.

Feedback welcome: is this a good summary of what the body says? Should it be added to the lead? -sche (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That would greatly improve the lead --John B123 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've added it. :) The body itself could use expansion in some areas, two of which I've highlighted in sections below. -sche (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Spitballing expansion: trans women in media

This article could be expanded with a section on trans women in media, covering trends in the representation of trans women in media (i.e. stereotypes), and statistics on the un-/under-representation of trans women in media (as characters and as actresses). When I have time, I will try to draft something, but mention it here in case anyone wants to help or beat me to it, or argue it would be a bad idea. -sche (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Spitballing expansion: trans women and feminism

This article could be expanded with a section on that topic, with links to and short summaries of Trans feminism and Feminist views on transgender topics. As above, I will try to draft something when I have time. -sche (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination section

"Discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color, who experience the intersection of racism and transphobia. Multiracial, Latina, Black and American Indian trans women are twice to more than three times as likely as White trans women to be sexually assaulted in prison." cites a "NTDS Report" (In quotes because I copy pasted the citation name.) But I searched that source for "intersection" the word racism is mentioned 4 times in the entire 228 page report, and not once is it used as a term to describe the correlation between racism and transphobia in regards to sexual assault in prisons. Also, the paper does actually give a graph. So "Multiracial, Latina, Black and American Indian trans women are twice to more than three times as likely as White trans women to be sexually assaulted in prison." Is unnecessarily vague because the actual victims per cohort are specified by the report, "twice to more than three times" is vague because it doesn't describe the data shown directly, are Black transwomen three times more likely? Or are they twice? and "Discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color, who experience the intersection of racism and transphobia." is not in citation given. ShimonChai (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with specifying what the number would be for each cohort. To me the intersection line seems like a reasonable way to restate the first key finding given in the NTDS summary "Discrimination was pervasive throughout the entire sample, yet the combination of anti-transgender bias and persistent, structural racism was especially devastating." If you want to reword the intersection line to be more similar to how it is stated in the source though feel free.Rab V (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

“They may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or none of the above.”

does this really belong in the lede? it doesn't seem directly related to being trans to me. gender and sexuality are two very different things.

also, if we're mentioning these three, why not asexuality? —mountainhead / ? 01:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's there because, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article and the article currently has a "Sexual orientation" section. The section was bigger than that, but was trimmed. Furthermore, people commonly conflate or confuse sexuality and gender aspects, especially with regard to transgender topics. Many people think that trans women are automatically exclusively sexually attracted to cisgender men. And so noting variety is an important aspect for the lead on those grounds as well. Many or most readers only read the leads of Wikipedia articles. If you want to add "asexual" to the lead, feel free. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

fair. I've added asexual in both spots. —mountainhead / ? 21:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

US-centrism

I feel this article would benefit greatly from a perspective regarding the treatment of trans women that isn't about america in particular. the discrimination section especially is basically 100% US issues; it's disproportionate.

american studies and reputable sources are more widespread, sure, but at this point much of the article is about "trans women in the US" more than it is about trans women in general. imo this might warrant a separate article. —mountainhead / ? 21:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "trans women in the US" would merit an article separate from this one and other already-existing articles like Transgender rights in the United States, but I agree that this article could use more content on other countries. Transgender rights in the United Kingdom and LGBT rights in India have some references (and referenced content) we could use for expanding the 'Discrimination' section (especially with information on discrimination protections), and it shouldn't be hard to find RS to expand the 'Violence' section with — in particular someone could probably write a whole subsection on Brazil, the way there is currently one on the US. I will work on this if I have time. -sche (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the transgender rights in the US article you linked. but yeah, I feel much of what's in these sections would be more appropriate there. —mountainhead / ? 22:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Remove the link to "woman" in the opening the sentence and replace with either "person" or "man". It is biologically incorrect to refer to a transgender woman as a woman. The article as currently drafted is scientifically wrong. Transwomen are transwomen. Women are women. They are different. And there's nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia should support science and facts, not political language. Hopefully this suggested edit will be approved. Chrestomathy37 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• rejected — this lede section has been thoroughly vetted. scroll up a little and you'll come across a rather long discussion that resulted in this consensus.

you're also completely missing the point. this is a strawman. "woman" and biological female are entirely different concepts. nobody is saying trans women are biological females. actual medical professionals will disagree with you. —mountainhead / ? 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

However, of course, not all academics believe that trans women are women. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms The above RfC concluded that there was no consensus on the best lede. Userwoman (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)