Talk:Trans woman

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

"A trans woman is a biological male whose emotional constitution presents as female." I am trying to get away from the word "identifies." That sounds too much like it is a choice or learned, which it is not. I would also like too avoid being disingenuous or confusing about the person's biological constitution because there is no choice in that matter either. Moreover, being born biologically as male and having a female personalty should not be construed negatively.2601:204:DB00:1C63:7140:C829:DCEB:83DB (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You should check out the conclusions of the months-long #RfC on introduction. Thisparticular thread is more than a year old. --Equivamp - talk 02:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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 idea that a transwoman are women remains a minority view, although passionately held by some to be sure. Wikipedia which aspires to be a neutral source should note both facts. If a transwoman is to be called a type of women that is essentially to change the language. Jeremy (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works based on reliable sources, not unsubstantiated assertions. And to anticipate one likely move, polling supporting the assertion that "The idea that a transwoman are women remains a minority view" would bear no more weight on the reality of gender than the increasing belief in flat-earthism in the U.S. would have on the shape of the globe - it is interesting as a fact about public opinion, perhaps, but not as a description of reality according to the most reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A fad among American liberals isn't a "description of reality"... This section is more an illustration on the vulnerability of Wikipedia to ideology than anything. It should at least contain a section of gender critical views. The nature of an encyclopedia is that it reflects the intellectual distortions of its time, I get that, and an open access encyclopedia perhaps more than others. But this page will become an embarrassment as the fad passes as fads do. Jeremy (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 18:07, June 16, 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)

There was also, however, a general repudiation of Userwoman's POV on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

Ccangull (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC) In Turkey, Trans Women’s access to justice problems starts before criminal justice system. Trans women are considered “guilty” because of their identity. In Turkey, having a LGBT identity is not a crime, but in everyday life, discrimination against LGBT community becomes concrete especially against trans women. Research shows that trans women are marginal of marginals. Family refusal, bullying and exclusion, discrimination in business life force trans women lead risky life-styles. Thus, for trans women who are perpetrators of some incidents, there is a correlation between these incidents and discrimination in their life. The main reasons of their acts causing imprisonment are life safety threats and lack of means of living.  

Violence against trans women is legitimized, but being trans is reason for remission even in homicide cases. Cases in which trans women are perpetrators result faster. In other words, trans women’s crimes result faster than the other people in Turkey.

They are mistreated by the police in police stations before their lawsuit process. These maltreatments include incidents of not being taken seriously, unanswered complaints about the police’s mistreats, public defender’s absence, the discriminatory attitudes of the judges etc. These are the trans women’s problems for access to justice.Ccangull (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)http://www.kaosgldernegi.org/yayindetay.php?id=184

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not remotely neutral in tone or content, taking one side of a disputed issue, and often reads like a puff piece. It needs at least a critical section. And for some of the more enthusiastic boosting to be removed. Jeremy (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. I recommend you peruse the archives littered with equine carcasses. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a talk page FAQ, summarizing some past discussions, as some such controversial articles have. Benjamin (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination against racial minorities

I removed part of the lede which said that trans women who are racial minorities face more discrimination due to the intersectionality of transmisogyny and racism. It certainly may be true, but we'd need to clarify which racial minorities in which countries are being referred to. It was then added back by PeterTheFourth who noted that in the 4th paragraph of the Criticism section, it clarifies that US trans women of color (indigenous, black, latina) are the ones facing discrimination. I'd be amenable to such language in the lede, but it needs to be specific. Further, that's only speaking to the experiences of trans women in one specific country--obviously the scope of the article is global, so it could be too US-centric to put that in the lede. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The wording originally stated "discrimination is particularly severe towards non-white trans women, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism. " I changed "non-white" to "racial minorities" in an edit I made yesterday, to be consistent with a global perspective, since the article as a whole is not specific to any one location. Obviously, a trans woman who, as an example, is Asian and lives in Japan would not be expected to face discrimination for being non-white in her own country.

I do, however, agree that it should be sourced and/or further clarified, and better specified in what parts of the world it is relevant. Vontheri (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made by ModerateMike729 who had changed "racial minorities" to "of color" with the edit summary "per talk". What talk was being referred to? This here is the only discussion about this that I am aware of. I would be fine with something like "discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color in the United States [or where ever it applies], who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism." But saying just "of color" or "non-white" without specifying where fails to be consistent with a global perspective. Also a citation is needed. Vontheri (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that 'of colour' is a better term than 'racial minority', which is more specific and less euphemism-y. If we want the article to be less US-centric, 'of colour' is a term that we should avoid. How would we feel about this proposed wording (inserted words in bold):

[...] discrimination is particularly severe in some countries towards trans women who are members of a racial minority, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism.

We don't specifically need references in the lede if the information is contained & referenced in the body of the article, and I personally think avoiding references in the lede produces a better looking article. In my proposed wording, if there was a better word than 'some' that didn't have the implication of a certain percent of countries (some vs many, etc) that would be good. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My point is that we can't claim a "global perspective" if we're only citing data/sources about the US. We can either specify that we mean trans women of color in the United States, which I admittedly should've included in my edit, or we can remove the sentence entirely. But in its current form, we're trying to put a global perspective in the lede that's not in the body, so I'm inclined to agree with just avoiding it in the lede entirely. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "of colo(u)r" is not the most optimal word choice. I would be fine with the sentence suggested by PeterTheFourth, "discrimination is particularly severe in some countries towards trans women who are members of a racial minority, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism." as long as there is a reference for which countries somewhere in the article. (Perhaps "certain countries" would be better than "some countries"?) I would also be fine with just taking the sentence out of the introduction if that is preferable. Vontheri (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Either is alright with me but I lean more toward just taking it out of the introduction entirely. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I can find Stonewall research and a GIRES document saying LGBT POC face racism even within LGBT communities, and that trans ones face transphobia, but I'm not sure if there's data specifically about trans women of colour facing both intersectingly. I also spotted this i-D article on black LGBT people in Brazil, but again, it doesn't get into TWOC specifically. I'll try to look into this some more when I have more time. -sche (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)