Talk:Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maneesh (talk | contribs) at 04:51, 12 December 2021 (link fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Please make the articles for man and woman equal and parallel.

Please choose one of the following options:

  1. On man, Replace "However, there are exceptions to the above for some transgender and intersex men." with "Trans men have a female sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex men may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male biology."
  2. On woman, Replace "Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology." with "However, there are exceptions to the above for some transgender and intersex women."

50.30.176.26 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited the page to the first option, however, someone had edited back as they deemed the detail added to be unnecessary. I feel that the first option should be used, as it’s far more comprehensive than the second one. ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary isn't the correct word. Any input about transgender would be in article about transgender, not an article about biological men or women. Objectiverealist (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lead image wtf?

Older revisions of the article had the Da Vinci's Vetruvian Man as the lead image, or Michelangelo's David, iconic... Now it's some random nobody! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.199.230 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not any different for the Wikipedia page for woman. Men, in reality, are not sculptures or artistic interpretations. I believe it’s intended to show a ‘generic’ man for the sake of accuracy, a real-life photograph instead of a statue. ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then give the ladies a sculpture too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.13.132 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Requesting to quote this article about male development etc. https://www.health.harvard.edu/drugs-and-medications/testosterone--what-it-does-and-doesnt-do Objectiverealist (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Cannolis (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Artwe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Artwe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Artwe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd claims about intersex, and other kvetching

Such an odd sentence "There are also intersex people who may identify as either female or male." No cite and completely vacuous. Virtually all intersex people simply *are* either male or female. Both males or females can identify as males or females or basketball players, royalty, alien beings or just about whatever they want. Maneesh (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claims in article amount to *anyone can identify as a man* and have no citation. Their removal has been reverted. WP:UNSOURCED Maneesh (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The intersex statement was re-removed by me because no direct connection to this topic was made, and as you note those conditions are sex-specific. It was also unsourced. I added CN tags to the gender identity stuff for now, not sure what to do with it. Crossroads -talk- 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing only on intersex, precisely the same issue exists in woman. The WPATH citation that is there has one occurrence of the term in the body, does not define it so and would not be an appropriate cite if it did. I have tried to correct this many times. Maneesh (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How odd that the strange and unsourced mention of intersex would be accepted here on man but just now reverted on woman. Maneesh (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you had looked, you would have found the supporting citation in the body of the article, where it belongs. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Why don't you add that here to support the mention of intersex if you really think that. Maneesh (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial has described these citation needed tags as "transphobic" and suggested to go to arbitration/noticeboard without participating in talk. Maneesh (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the passage in question has nothing to do with intersex people, I didn't realize that this section has anything to do with the tags suggesting that the existence of trans people was deserving of a cn-tag. As specified in my edit summary, that seems to fall afoul of the last bullet of "When not to use this tag" at WP:NEEDCITE and indicates a behavioural issue, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is the correct topic but I think these CN tags are justified [1]. I would assume they aren't hard to find but this is in the body of the article yet not a blue sky claim. Ping involved editors Newimpartial. Springee (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Springee: are you suggesting that the existence of trans people is not a blue sky claim? Are you sure that's the move you want to make, here? Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, this is a strange interpretation by you. Consider reading the claims around CN tags more carefully. Maneesh (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant bullet says, Do not insert a "Citation needed" tag to make a point ... or because you "don't like" a subject. It seems to me that placing tags that question whether trans people exist falls under this broad heading, though as I say, a behavioural noticeboard might help in assessing that issue.
The claims you have referred to are essentially, "some AMAB people are trans women" and "some AFAB people are trans men". That is the same as "trans people exist", since those two categories account for nearly all trans people (excluding certain nonbinary and intersex trans people only). Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that not all people reading this will be as progressive on this topic as the typical Wikipedia editor. It would be good to have an authoritative source saying that yes, sexuality and gender aren't 1:1 and supporting the percentage claim. This isn't a blue sky claim and it is in the article body so it should have citations. Note that this isn't the only part of the article that is poorly or uncited. Springee (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, that sex and gender identity aren't 1:1? That is indeed a blue sky statement, because trans people exist. If you are questioning that trans people are a small percentage of the population, that seems bizarre: do you think we are more than, say, 10%? Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I solved the issue by copying the reference from here Trans_man#Terminology. Springee (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does. The sentence in the article makes a claim about a "small percentage" the cite says "It is difficult to accurately estimate the number of transgender people, mostly because there are no population studies that accurately and completely account for the range of gender identity and gender expression.". Maneesh (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced "percentage" with "proportion". Newimpartial (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that change makes the source support the claim in the wp article. The claim in the source is that there is no estimate known, not that it is "small". Maneesh (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about "Some" instead of "A small proportion". I was trying to preserve information that is relevant for our readers, but I'm not willing to get into a slap battle over estimates. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don' think the cite supports that either, the cite says "we don't know". Tewdar is concerned about other user's hobbies and has added this cite. I can't WP:SOURCEACCESS, but the abstract doesn't break down the balance between trans-identifying males and females => does not support the claim in the article. Maneesh (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source which estimates an absolute maximum of 5% for TGNC as a whole, and probably less. Tewdar (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does give AFAB vs AMAB breakdowns, if you really need them... Tewdar (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about you provide the quote here? Maneesh (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It summarizes a whole bunch of studies worldwide. Perhaps I'll paste some more quotes tomorrow, but for now, "The reported proportions of people self-identified as TGNC ranged from 100 to 2000 per 100,000 or 0.1% to 2% among adults. The corresponding range among schoolchildren was 1.3% to 2.7%. One study reported an even higher proportion of almost 5%, but there is a good reason to suspect that the specific survey item (“I wish I was the opposite sex”) used in that study may have resulted in an inflated estimate." And how come you can't access the source anyway? Tewdar (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "in summary, it is clear that people who identify as TGNC represent a sizable proportion of the general population. Based on the credible evidence available to date, this proportion currently ranges from 0.1% to 2.7%, depending on the inclusion criteria, age of participants, and geographic location." Tewdar (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear to me if trans-identified females are the same as GNC females, and same for males => doesn't support claim in article. Why would you expect me to be able to access paywalled source? Maneesh (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, I can't be bothered pasting the full breakdown right now. I didn't realize it was paywalled, my ever so humblest apologies etc... Tewdar (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"TGNC" = transgender and gender non-conforming, btw Tewdar (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, and the is the union of two sets, one of them not the subject of the claim in the wp article. Maneesh (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
eg For Holland: "Using the Dutch Bureau of Statistics data for denominator estimates, the proportion of TGNC in the Dutch population was calculated as 5.6 per 100,000 for AMAB and 1.9 per 100,000 for AFAB" - I think we can summarize that as "a small percentage", without any OR. The trans men/women proportion certainly can't be more than that in Holland, can they? Tewdar (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A study of Taiwanese university students conducted interviews with 5010 partici-pants using the Adult Self-Report Inventory-4 instrument.45Self-reported “gender dysphoria” was determined based on a response to the statement “I wish I was the opposite sex.” Responses “often” and “very often” were interpreted as evidence of gender dysphoria. The use of this rather loose definition produced high estimated proportions of TGNC people: 7% for AFAB and 1.9% for AMAB." - now either stop being such a cheapskate and purchase the bleddy article, or learn to use scihub or something. Tewdar (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don' think you've read what I've written above. Nothing you've quoted seems to appropriately support the claim this wp article, I will keep my hard earned money in my wallet, thank you.Maneesh (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you want. According to the study, it's 0.1% to 2.7%, with an AMAB:AFAB ratio between 1.7—1:1.What do you want them to say, "this is a small proportion?" Tewdar (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The reported proportions of individuals with TGNC-specific diagnoses across populations in these studies ranged from 0.7 to 28 per 100,000. The corre-sponding estimates for AMAB and AFAB individuals ranged from 0.7 to 36 and from 0.7 to 19, respectively." Tewdar (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those are transgender and how many are GNC for both sexes? Maneesh (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
380:310 per 100,000 identifying as transgender AMAB vs AFAB (US) Tewdar (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've selected multiple different estimates from the same source. Which study is that estimate from exactly? It seems to be one of the cited within the review, but I can't check the claim until you point to the underlying source. Maneesh (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reisner et al 2014 Tewdar (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided URLs/DOIs for your studies and not facilitated verification of your claims. E.g. there seem to be multiple Reisner et al 2014 studies, the ones I can find don't support your claim. Maneesh (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1224 Tewdar (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have to view table 2 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1224/tables/2 Tewdar (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cited numbers of 380:310 per 100000 are for *gender minority*, in this paper transgende is, apparently, distinct from cross-sex. This is also only young adults. Quite muddled to support the claim in the article. Maneesh (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1157:1199 AMAB vs AFAB per 100000 (NZ secondary school children) Tewdar (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats Clark et al 2014 - are yourself, Crossroads, and Newimpartial having a "most annoying Wikipedian" contest or something? Tewdar (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.008 if you can't find it... Tewdar (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this study is the journal of Adolescent Health and the study is about "The Health and Well-Being of Transgender High School Students"..yet this article is about adult males. Do you think that cite supports the claims in the article? You really need to read things more carefully, this is a bit silly at this point. Maneesh (talk)

I'm not sure you understand how secondary studies work, Maneesh. It seems obvious that "a small proportion" is backed up, so we can offer that to our readers without descending to "some". It doesn't seem that any of the primary studies produced findings thet conflict with "a small proportion": 5% is a small proportion, and 0.1% would still be a small proportion. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying stuff I agree with, right now. Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally clear on what Maneesh is asking for - is it to specify exact percentages? That may be worthwhile, but also shouldn't be hard, so long as the secondary source specifically says that it is speaking of people with transgender identity rather than wording it in a broad way that it ropes in GNC cisgender people.
Simply asking for a source that supports the claim in the article. Coherence in this area is known to be poor (you can see in the link that Newimpartial provided, "we don't know"), wp needs to say something that is verifiable and it is not right now. You can see in the long thread above, none of Tewdar's sources support the claim either (different groups of people, adolescents). If the sentence said something like 'some men identify as as women and some women identify as men, estimating the number of such people is challenging since...', that is probably easily supportable. The current sentence in the article is hard to support because it isn't a very good one to have in an article about adult males. Maneesh (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current sentence does say that some assigned at birth aa men identify as as women and some assigned at birth as wimen identify as men - as has been previously discussed ad nauseam, sex assignment is the way recent reliable sources present these categories of people. Describing them instead as "men who identify as women" and "women who identify as men" is transphobic language that denies transgender existence - don't do that, Maneesh.
So aside from this aspect of "do trans people exist", the current text also points out that AMAB women are trans women, AFAB men are trans men, and that they represent small proportions of people. If there is anything there that is either controversial or unsupported by sources, I would love to know what that is, since Maneesh has failed to communicate this so far. Newimpartial (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep seeing denial of people who identify as trans in many places. Strange. The current sentence does not say that and includes children since it uses "male" instead of "man". Maneesh (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are imagining a problem that does not exist. Some people AFAB are adults (amd are men) and therefore trans men. Some people AFAB are, in fact, children, but that is irrelevant to the veracity of this statement. There are similar usages of "male" throughout the article; there is no reason to allege an issue specific to this section where none exists. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim and the cite that support the claim have to be about adult males and have to use "transgender" in the right way, some reading shows you wwhy that is difficult. Not much to it. Maneesh (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim in the text is simply that some AFAB people are trans men and some AMAB people are trans women. Denying that BLUESKY statement is, in fact, to deny that trans people exist - and you haven't provided any alternative explanation of what your are actually objecting to, meaningfully different from the current, factual statement in wikivoice that trans men and trans women exist. Instead, you have been cavilling and kvetching about what seem to be utter irrelevancies. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather baffled that Newimpartial above takes an attempt to improve text about trans people, by asking for citations to be added via CN tags, to be some sort of denial that trans people exist. Wikipedia text is supposed to be WP:Verifiable. Text with citations is stronger and more authoritative. Crossroads -talk- 07:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When what the text says is that trans men and trans women exist, and citation-needed tags are added to those statements, I see no other interpretation than that the tags demand citations demonstrating that trans people exist. I have no issue with the sources that have now been added, of course, but there is no requirement that tags be added before sources can be, and these particular tags were rather against the spirit of that last bullet, given the content they were demanding verification for. Trans people do in fact exist. Newimpartial (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" Difficulties with measuring the trans population stem from the definitional dilemmas that we have discussed thus far. Though numerous researchers have reported prevalence statistics, they must be cited with caution because of the inconsistency with which “transsexual” and “transgender” have historically been defined." that pretty much captures the problem you've had above. Maneesh (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that paper suggests that estimates of the number of trans people range from 0.00007% to 3% or more. Now, for an article called "man", we can either (a) Wikisummarize this as "it's estimated that a small percentage of (AMAB) males identify as trans women, and a small percentage of (AFAB) females identity as trans men", which I believe the data supports, or (b) reel off a half-page of stats, with data for specific countries, who was included, the methodology used, etc. I wonder which we should prefer? Tewdar (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prevalence data most frequently cited come from a gender clinic in the Netherlands and demonstrate that 1 in 11,000 (.009%) per-sons are MTF, and 1 in 30,400 (.0032%) are FTM (van Kesteren et al. 1996 ) . A recent study from Singapore found 1 in 2,900 (.034%) MTFs and 1 in 8,300 (.012%) FTMs, while a study in Belgium found 1 in 12,900 (.0077%) MTFs and 1 in 33,800 (.0029%) FTMs (Winter et al. 2009 ). The American Psychiatric Association, using GID criteria, suggested that MTFs had a 1 in 30,000 (.0077%) prevalence rate, while FTMs were 1 in 100,000 (.0029%) (APA 2000 ) ."
There is a definitional dilemma ('identifies as a man' vs. 'identifies as transgender' vs. 'identifies as masculine' vs. 'gender dysphoria' etc.). Best you can do here, I think, is be conservative "A transgender man is defined by some sources as a biological female who identifies as a male. Counting the number of such individuals is challenging due a variety of reasons but most estimates of prevalence are much less than 1% of the (female? male? general?) population." The clarity around "biological female" or something like "female anatomy" is essential in this article which has considerable focus on male biology/male anatomy. Transmen are, of course, female but this simple fact remains obfuscated in most sources, the one I've provided is on the clearer and also has an (international) prevalence number. Maneesh (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a big table (for all over 15s):
  • Australia (1981): 1 in 24,000 MTF, 1 in 150,000 FTM
  • Belgium (2007): 1 in 12,900 MTF, 1 in 33,800 FTM
  • Germany (1996): 1 in 14,400 MTF, 1 in 33,200 FTM
  • Iran (2009): 1 in 555 MTF [sic], 1 in 833 FTM [sic]
  • MASSIVE ETC.............

Tewdar (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now Newimpartial has twice reverted the removal of "There are exceptions to the above in regards to transgender men." after a detailed paragraph on the anatomy of adult males. "Exceptions" is a terribly odd way to describe the differences between male and females. EDIT Forgot to sign earlier: Maneesh (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert it again. It looks ridiculous and POINTy. Tewdar (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was a previous discussion that arrived at consensus on this vacuous language. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no doubt about that. No doubt whatsoever. Tewdar (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess - a martial arts instructor, a gin distiller, a c++ programmer, and a phonologist? Tewdar (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted since new consensus (WP:CCC) of 4 vs 1 (I think) editors is to keep it out. It really helps though if you click revert if you don't want it either. :) I see no need to shout-out to specific exceptional subsets of minority men, whether trans men, men with other physical conditions like no prostate due to prostate cancer, or the like, in the lead. Crossroads -talk- 23:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We give a mention to trans men / women already somewhere in the article. Good enough,imo. Tewdar (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, you can't simply decide that something has consensus when 50%+1 of editors agree with you but lacks consensus when no matter how many editors disagree with you. That isn't how anything works. I would be fine to write this up as an RfC, though I'll come up with better options than the rump sentence of the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Man&oldid=1059876708"