Talk:Trans woman

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

What does that exactly mean? she was assigned male although she was female? she was male and after transition became female? is she still male? If a baby born with vulva is assigned male by a bureaucratic error and identifies as female later in life, will she be a trans woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgebox4 (talk • contribs)

As I have tried to explain before and your comment gets at, the current definition does a poor job of educating readers on what the topic actually is. Sources usually use another family of definitions which emphasize the crucial concept of gender identity. See them at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions and feel free to add sources to that list for future discussions. Most do however use the "assigned male..." terminology; I get why this could confuse, but calling it "assignment" is more the 'fault' of the sources than of us, so there's not much we could do. At least we have the wikilink there to explain it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's one possibility I've thought of: A trans woman was assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Jorgebox4 honestly maybe a better definition would be preferable in the lead. Or maybe we could add more definitions.

But, anyway I can understand why you have issues with the definition. We just live in those times.CycoMa (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the current first sentence A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth it is brief, clear and unambiguous. Transwomen not only identify as a women, but they are recognised as women in many other ways, such as equality and civil rights laws and other ways. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not add more definitions? Maybe we can give more of an explanation to readers.CycoMa (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:MOSLEAD tells us that a lead section is a concise overview of the article's topic, it needs to be simple and straightforward to grab the wide range of readership. MOS:FIRST states that The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere. The are a number of definitions at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, but essentially they are all fairly similar as to not warrant unnecessarily confusing the reader with slight variations of the same wording. However looking again at the definitions on that page, it does appear that identity/identifies is included in about 3/4s of the explanations/clarifications and thus Crossroads (talk · contribs)' suggested wording change certainly does have merit. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And I am going to say that "identifies as X" does not, in this context, carry the same connotations as "has X as a gender identity", so it is misleading to add up sources formulated in those two different ways as though they were saying the same thing. In particular, "identifies as" offers subtle support for the "unverifiable and unfalsifiable" characterization discussed at Gender identity, which is not at all the mainstream position presented by the best sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing "identifies as a woman" is problematic, but I don't think it's conceptually distinct from "has a female gender identity". All the sources say something along the lines of "[male sex assignment] BUT [female gender identity]", so a similar construction seems due here, as long as it doesn't tacitly cast doubt on the validity of trans identities. I think some variant of Option 2 from the 2018 RFC is worth revisiting. How about the obvious choice, A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

See below; as first disclosed last year, I now favor a slightly different construction, for reasons that are related to a recent convo on Talk:Transgender. Female gender includes more than female gender identity, and I have come to see that as a good thing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not really sold on "is a person of the female gender who..." as the first sentence. It strikes me as a slightly unusual synonym for woman, while still tacitly categorizing trans women as something other than women. None of the sourced definitions use that particular phrasing, so I'm not sure it's due here. If possible please link me to that prior discussion. Right now I still prefer either the status quo, or some formulation of "is a woman who ____ but ____." RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Last year's discussion is also linked below. While yes, person of the female gender is a synonym for woman, it is a more specific synonym - which has certain advantages in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia - the only encyclopedia that cannot come up with a reasonable definition of a transgender woman that anyone can edit... Tewdar (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "blah blah blah with a female gender identity whose sex at birth was discerned/determined to be male" or something like that? Tewdar (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I still prefer people of the female gender who were assigned male at birth, for the reasons I provided near the conclusion of last year's inconclusive discussion. Also, we don't have sources for discerned/determined, as far as I know. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just expand the definition of "sex assignment" using some RS then. "Male sex whatevered at birth, female gender" seems fine. Tewdar (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The term assignment is used by nearly all the 30 odd definitions gathered at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, the is one registered and one designated. Lucky the is an article Sex assignment so a wiki link might be helpful, though article is only C rated atm. I still also prefer the simplicity of people of the female gender who were assigned male at birth ^{I meant to quote the current lead first sentence A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. but a person of the female gender has merit} other things can be expanded in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC) ^{corrected ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)}

"People of the female gender" sounds a bit ridiculous to me...I guess it's "assigned" or "designated" then. Tewdar (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe try gender if you are confused? The term can refer to gender identity, or gender expression, or other things in other contexts. Newimpartial (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm confused? "People of the female gender" sounds affected and pompous. There's no problem with "female gender" at my end, though. Thank you for assuming that I don't know that female can refer to gender, FFS... Tewdar (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to I guess it's "assigned" or "designated" then. (I was trying to AGF.) What was that intended to express, if not confusion? Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I meant the lede is probably going to be restricted to a choice between "assigned male at birth" or "designated male at birth". Why do you sound so disproportionately hostile and needlessly aggressive all the time, FFS? Tewdar (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what Noam Chomsky wrote when he replied to my email the other day. He must be an academic, too... Tewdar (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Facial Feminization Surgery is indeed relevant to some trans women but not the lead sentence. Heh. Anyway, above "is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity" was suggested, but this is redundant by repeating the point of "woman/female". I knew that anything with "is a person" would face pushback by some saying it implicitly excludes trans women as women, which I why my suggestion avoided it, but I note that almost all of the 3/4 of the definitions that emphasize gender identity say something just like it, because they go on to explain in the rest of the sentence. I also don't agree that "identifies as" implies anything bad; another way is "has the gender identity of a woman", but that seems awkward.

What are the thoughts on this: A trans woman has a female gender identity but was assigned male at birth. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds alright I suppose. The problem is, "assigned" to non-initiated readers sounds like it might have been a mistake as seen in OP. Perhaps we can find a way of paraphrasing "assigned male at birth" in the lede? Also, it fails to include the slogan "a trans woman is a woman" so, for the sake of facial feminization surgery, it might not be acceptable. But it's better than the current lede IMO. Tewdar (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of slogans, they don't help people understand the topic; slogans by design are for political action, not education. I don't think getting rid of "assigned" is feasible since very many of the definitions use that term and it is fairly common at present for transgender topics. Even if it were possible, that would be too much of an ask for one RfC to change that also.

Newimpartial, what are your thoughts on this proposal? It's close to what you had accepted last time this was debated. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That was two iterations ago; last year I moved to female gender-based formulations and there I remain, for reasons I have explained recently (and repetitively). Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

But "gender" can be an ambiguous term. The crucial sense here is gender identity, as laid out by very many of the definitions. It isn't mere gender expression alone or anything else. Bodney, since you earlier expressed some tentative support for a formulation that mentions gender identity, what do you think of this exact formulation I gave a short bit ago A trans woman has a female gender identity but was assigned male at birth.

And as far as Aquillion's comment below me: I wasn't expecting to change it without an RfC. I just had some new ideas and wanted to get a feel for how they could be received. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My view is a bit fluid atm I like current lede sentence because of its unquestioning simplicity, but I can see merit in both yours and Newimpartial (talk · contribs)'s, a person of the female gender who were assigned male at birth and RoxySaunders (talk · contribs)'s A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity. But i need rush away in rl. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Statistics Canada is far from being the only source to invoke gender expression as well as gender identity in this context. I prefer to take the longer view, here. Newimpartial (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing a problem with the current lead, and since the relevant part of it was the result of an RFC with really massive attendance I think we'd probably need another RFC if it was going to be changed. The terminology is fairly standard and I'm not convinced from the discussions that it's causing any serious confusion; obviously it is not possible to condense every possible aspect of gender-identity and the issues surrounding it into a single well-formed sentence, but this phrasing is quite standard by now and summarizes it adequately. --Aquillion (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well, let's compare Britannica's entry for 'transgender': "term self-applied by persons whose gender identity varies from that traditionally associated with their apparent biological sex at birth." Okay, it might not be the most bleeding-edge or hyper-inoffensive definition available, but it does succeed in doing what an encyclopedia should be doing - giving me a basic outline of what the bleddy article is about. Tewdar (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Or The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies entry for trans men: "Trans men are people who were designated female at birth but who identify and often live their lives as men" (the *trans women* entry is much less clear, however) Tewdar (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Notice "designated", not "assigned" Tewdar (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Why not add more entries to the sub-page? Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Because those entries are not, strictly speaking, definitions of "trans women". Tewdar (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking I fail to see how your chosen definitions are any more than minor wording differences in comparison to existing collected list of definitions. To state that the two you have personally chosen are the true definitions and the many slightly different variations collected by other editors are not definations, is to (put it extremely mildly) highly questionable. While sex designation is not bad, assignment is a far more universally recognised term and because of this the is an article on Sex assignment, the is not one on Sex designation. As respectfully recommended, the 2 definitions you found should be simply added to the list at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, nothing more. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think Tewdar was saying that the two definitions he wrote here are not definitions of “trans woman”, but are rather for “transgender” and “trans men”. The subpage says This page is only for listing definitions of trans woman., so he did not add them. POLITANVM ^talk 13:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, that is exactly what I am saying. I have no idea how any other interpretation is possible. "The two you have personally chosen are the true definitions" - where was this stated? They probably do a better job defining their respective topics than we manage on this article, however. Tewdar (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, perhaps the phrase "those entries" may have been a little ambiguous... Tewdar (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely sparkling crystal clear, many of the definitions on the Trans woman/Definitions page are perfectly acceptable and are an improvement on the current lede, IMHO. Tewdar (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, how exactly does the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies define trans woman? Do you have a link to it for the subpage? Google Books is being uncooperative. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, hang on a mo... I have the book, I'll type it out soon... Tewdar (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It's actually rather fuzzy; so I suppose it's "individuals assigned male at birth who took on traditionally female roles and dress", but they say that "a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible"... do you want me to paste the whole entry? It really leans towards a description, rather than a definition... Tewdar (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"The identity trans women emerged in 20th-century Europe and North America, but traditions and identities in European and non-European societies anticipated the emergence of contemporary trans identities. While a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible, trans women are becoming more visible and gaining greater acceptance in the United States and other countries, even as they continue to experience pervasive discrimination, harassment, and violence [...lots of text skipped ...] people who anticipated contemporary trans women date back centuries. In fact, evidence suggests that individuals assigned male at birth who took on traditionally female roles and dress existed in many premodern cultures and were often connected with indigenous shamanic traditions." Tewdar (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more of what the first sentence in their encyclopedia entry is. Maybe you said it already but I'm not sure. I don't expect you to copy the whole entry, which is probably not allowed copyright-wise anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it actually starts with the bit above, "The identity trans women emerged in 20th-century Europe and North America..." so it really takes a historical / descriptive approach, rather than trying to provide a copper-bottomed definition, which it later states is not possible. It really doesn't define the term... Tewdar (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

Even a literal encyclopedia of trans studies won't offer a clear definition. I'm sure that bodes well for us. /s Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Better to state that 'A universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible' than to leave the lede as it is. For the the statement a 'A trans woman is a woman...' to be true, the defining characteristic of a woman must be the mind. Are there any widely accepted definitions of 'woman' that describe it as a function of the mind? Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A universally accepted definition of anything is not possible, yet you’ll be surprised to find that very few Wikipedia articles begin that way. Respectfully, your or my personal opinions on what is “required” to be a woman are not especially relevant. If there is no suitable encyclopedic definition for this term, or there is not any consensus among reliable sources, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that this is the case, rather than simply moving the goalposts.RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have put the case that there is no consensus by pointing to Tewdar's passage from the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies - "a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible". Did you mean suitable encyclopedic definition for woman, or for trans woman?

Let me see if I have this straight:

1. A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. (Source: this article.)

2. A woman is an adult female human. (Source: linked article on "Woman".)

3. Female is the sex of an organism that produces ova. (Source: article on "Female" linked from "Woman.)

4. Male is the sex of an organism that produces sperm. (Source: article on "Male".)

So a trans woman is a human who produces ova as an adult, but produced sperm at birth. Excellent! Amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia. 24.20.43.198 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Also from Female: "Female can refer to either sex or gender..." I see some good proposals above that attempt to emphasize the "female gender" aspect of the definition. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the linked articles, which has been noted before, is the predominance of ova over gender at Female combined with the wikilink to Female in the lede of Woman. The WP:OWNers of these articles have resisted proposals to solve them, so the issues remain. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem is the people who won't read past the first sentence of an article and expect it to explain every detail. Those definitions are in accord with WP:DUE, and even if sources on one topic did contradict sources on another, that's society's problem, not ours. It really doesn't help, though, that many of the editors at this article insist on keeping a sloganesque wording that represents a small minority of definitions (documented at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions) in clear violation of WP:DUE, when we could easily rewrite it to mention the crucial concept of gender identity, as by far the majority of definitions do. Unfortunately not many of us are in the mood for the assumptions of bad faith that will get slung our way and general drama that an RFC to change it will bring. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm certain that ova will remain predominant in the 'Female' article, given that it's not an article specific to female humans and humans make up a tiny proportion of the variety living organisms on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisha'o'Mine (talk • contribs)

I am well aware of this, but the consequence of Female being overwhelmingly a biological article, which is then linked from articles that are not primarily about biology (e.g., Woman), is that "gotcha" points are then scored by those inclined to do so: a process that generates more heat than light.

As far as Crossroads' point on gender identity is concerned, I still hold that "identifies as" definitions and "gender identity" definitions should not be considered identical when it comes to point scoring assessing DUE and BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no basis to assert it's a "woman" in first place. When someone is "assigned" male at birth, at least this is supported by a physical examination performed by a professional. If in doubt they also can conduct other studies. But there's absolutely no evidence that someone claiming to be a woman, actually is. An encyclopaedia should be based on facts.--Charrua85 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly contention regarding the statement "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth". Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased, and yet this statement is clearly not neutral. It should read "A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth who now identifies as being a woman." Colevasquez (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is contention, but the current sentence does match some of the definitions gathered as Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, so it isn’t right to say it doesn’t follow WP:NPOV. Some of those definitions are more closely aligned to your rewrite. So the questions are: which sources do we trust most, and how to we paraphrase them without editorializing? I don’t know what the answer is, but I know the answer isn’t that the current definition is biased and non-neutral. Politanvm ^talk 18:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the Oxford dictionary definition: "A trans woman is a transgender person who has transitioned from male to female." or an adaptation of LGBT authority GLAAD and Stonewall's definitions would suffice?: "A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth, but whose gender identity is female." I think the key to a neutral definition is to highlight that it is the gender identity and not the sex that has changed, and "A trans women is a woman" does not get across this nuance and reads like a trans woman is a biological female who was mistakenly designated as a male by medical negligence. Colevasquez (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Colevasquez that the definition currently reads like reads like it could apply to people like Lady Colin Campbell, who never identified as male, and never felt as if they underwent any kind of transition. Nero Calatrava (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Lady Colin Campbell is an example of our current definition being imperfect. I am not sure there's a first-sentence definition that won't have imperfections, and I think the current version is less imperfect than some other proposals above. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

While I recognize that there is a tension between "subjective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who identifies as trans) and "objective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who has transitioned, or is transitioning, or who was assigned one status but now occupied another). That said, I don't see why editors think the Lady Campbell case is problematic in the objective sense: there was an attempt to assign sex - legally and physically - based on a decision made in infancy, and Campbell made her own decisions as an adult to change both legal sex and anatomical presentation. I don't see why it would be inappropriate for that scenario to fit the "objective" definition of "trans woman" though her subjective experience is undoubtedly different than most. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(OP) I don't even know what "assigned at birth" means. You're either born male or female (or rarely both). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The term is Intersex, not hermaphrodite. I am quite confident the term hermaphrodite is considered offensive nowadays and wrong to use in medical/scientific settings in reference to human anatomy. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In this politically correct era, it's difficult to know what is or isn't offensive. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well now you know. Not exactly secret info. GoodDay, if you read the article you can easily learn about Sex_assignment at birth. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In terms of efficiency, GoodDay, you might benefit most from reading this section, which relates to the Lady Campbell discussion. (Some other editors might benefit, as well). Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's observation that ″there is a tension between "subjective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who identifies as trans) and "objective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who has transitioned, or is transitioning, or who was assigned one status but now occupied another)″ is important. I suggest that this point be included in the lead part of the article, perhaps in the very first sentence, which could state up front that there are two ways of defining a trans women and they have different extensions. Nero Calatrava (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

How can a "trans woman" be a "woman" when the definition (according to Wikipedia) of "woman" is "adult human female" and a female (according to Wikipedia) produces ova? Can so-called "trans women" produce ova? Are their gametes larger than a males? Do they have XX chromosomes? No? Then they're not female. So they can't be an adult human female. They cannot be a woman. Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Wokepedia to reflect its ideological bias. Garis (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. You can see the discussions on this page, and the subpage with an extensive list of definitions for “trans woman”, which has a wide breadth of definitions, some of which support the way the article is currently written. Feel free to suggest better ways to summarize reliable sources, but try to avoid original research/logic types of arguments, and certainly don’t cite Wikipedia, since it’s not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. On a side note, your signature should make it easy to identify your username. Politanvm ^talk 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sendtoanthony If you read past the first sentence of Woman and Female you will see that both articles address that issue. As with many articles, the first line provides a general purpose definition, and then the rest of the article clarifies that definition. Thus Female refers to both sex and gender, and a woman may be trans or intersex. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have have an issue with other people you need to take up with someone else rather than spreading misinformation as you have done on wikipedia. I persume infertile women are also not women? RJS001 (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Conflict

Right now Wikipedia is contradicting itself with mutually contradictory claims, including this one:

• This claim is that a trans woman is a woman (without citations).
• The page for woman says that a woman is, in part, female (with citations).
• The page for female says that females produce ova (with citations), which trans women do not; furthermore, the same with-citations sentence defines female as a sex, not a gender identity.

There are multiple possible solutions here, including modifying the page for female, modifying the page for woman, and modifying the page for trans woman. I am going to do the latter, as its claim is the only one made without citations. I not going to modify the sentence directly, per the embedded comment saying not to do so without an RfC, but I think it should be changed from "is a woman" to "is someone who identifies as a woman", in order to match other Wikipedia articles, but I should add that the page for female does not match the modern common usage of the term, which is based on identity, not objectively verifiable attributes; furthermore, the current page for female includes no discussion of how different cultures may define the word differently. For now, I am going to add a citation needed claim to the trans woman page sentence this is about, as the sentence is contradicting two other sentences on Wikipedia that both have multiple citations.Quindraco (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The references-as with most statements of fact in the lead-are in the article body, where they should be.

Also, have you read any of the 17 or so discussions of this topic on this Talk page? Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily want to question the lede sentence here, but exactly which reference is being used to support this statement? The article body does not provide such a definition, unless I am mistaken.

Obviously, definitions identical to this can be found on the famous definitions subpage which I can't be bothered to link to right now. But they don't seem to be used in the article. So, either add one of these to the body (better option), or add an inline citation to the first sentence (worse option). 😁👍  Tewdar  13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The key phrase is in the McKinnon source cited in the terminology section. Which isn't to imply an objection to improvements to be made to that section, in clarity and sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Terminology Section

@Tewdar: and I have been discussing the terminology section. While it started over use of a specific source, we've both come to the conclusion that the terminology section as a whole is in somewhat of a poor state. I'm copying over the relevant comments from Twedar's talk page below to facilitate discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Comments copied below Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty. I've read through the section that Levitt wrote. I feel as though both the original version is SYNTHy. Where the previous editor has erred is that they took the generalised "the sex of those who transition" bit which Levitt applied to both trans women and trans men, and applied it only to trans women. However I also understand why they did this. The use of "transwomen" versus "trans woman" (or "transman" versus "trans man") is a hot button topic at the moment within trans discourse. While I cannot attest to how the words were used circa 2008 when the source was published, in 2022 the use of "transwomen" is almost exclusively done so by transphobes, whereas "trans woman" is the preferred term for trans individuals.

Given the age of the source, and that there isn't a newer edition of it, perhaps we could omit Levitt's definition entirely as it doesn't represent the modern usage of the term?

Also feel free to copy this reply, and any subsequent ones you make to the talk page if you'd prefer to discuss this there instead of here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Trash the whole synthin' lot. It's mainly just repeating what's already said somewhere else in the unstructured mess that is the terminology section, and it's old, and uses outdated and, as you point out, possibly offensive terminology like 'transwomen'. That entire section is total random rubbish.  Tewdar  18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The entire terminology section is dreadful. It's just loads of bits all stuck together!  Tewdar  18:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at that section as a whole now, and yeah. It reads very disjointed, as just a collection of various trans terminological factoids strung together without care for how the section as a whole reads. Who was the student editor for this section? Just so we can see what the state of it was before their edits, to see if that's any better. Or whether we need to redraft that section entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Racheljsmall is the editor responsible for the Heidi M Levitt additions, according to the magnificent WikiBlame tool. Not sure about the rest. I mean, come on, none of the definitions in that section even match that given in the lede!  Tewdar  19:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty. I dug through the history, this diff is the state of the article immediately before that editor greatly expanded the terminology section. Unfortunately, due to both the age (these edits were 5 years ago) and the shortness of the section at that time, this doesn't really help us much. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the stuff about trans women being called freaks can be left out of this section. Ditto the part about the ability to pass (which should certainly be defined in this section, however)  Tewdar  19:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I mean, the only thing that this section should have (a few modern definitions/perspectives of the relevant terminology) is almost completely absent. Why not move/copy some of the definitions used in the umpteen sources in the lede to this section? 🤔  Tewdar  19:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  So for the terminology section as a whole, I think it is important that we keep Feinberg's first use of it, as well as that the elaboration on it often having a negative connotation, as that is still true today. I agree we could leave out the "freaks" quote, but we may want to keep later half of that sentence, that Feinberg's gender expression has made her a target, as that is also still true today (cross-ref transphobia). Historically Feinberg's definition is important, as the first recorded use of the term.

  More generally for this discussion, we should have a subsection for the draft of the replacement terminology section. We should also have a subsection for a structural overview of what should be in that, before we start drafting, so that we don't repeat the same mistakes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Alright. I've made those subsections now. Give me a short while to add some content to the structure section. It's going to be formatted something like: "Paragraph 1: X. Paragraph 2: Y, etc". Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. This is to give us a plan on what will go into this section, so that the section as a whole reads coherently, and not as a collection of random factoids, which will assist us when it comes to actually drafting. I'd suggest we nail this down first, before we start drafting. And then we can re-evaluate it as we go along if we need to add additional in-between paragraphs for example, or decide to cut stuff entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good, Swipe. Perhaps define other terms eg passing, etc, in para 4... Tewdar  19:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, encase I wasn't clear, those sections can be edited by anyone. So feel free to add there as required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed structure of Terminology Section

First Paragraph

Should be similar to the current first paragraph. Include the latin prefix info, as well as an edited version of Feinberg's definition from 1996.

We could also include some other contemporary definitions from this period (say 1996-2005), if there are any of relevance?

Second Paragraph

Evolution of the term, since Fineberg's definition?

Third Paragraph

Current usage of the term?

Fourth Paragraph

Content on why/when some trans women go "stealth", and stop referring to themselves as "trans women" and just "women"?

Fifth Paragraph and beyond

Content on use of "trans women" in non-English speaking cultural context? Eg, Latin American use of travesti?

Mandatory signature to not set off SineBot Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed draft of Terminology section

To be expanded upon shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

When did Wiki become political?

To state "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." is to make a highly controversial decision affirming a particular side of a debate

What is this based on? Why have Wiki editors chose to side with one side of a debate?

Montalban (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki editors don't take sides in a debate, or at least, shouldn't. You are not the first to ask this question, and you can be sure that the wording in this article and the lead in particular has been discussed numerous times, one could even say ad nauseam. The article didn't end up this way by accident, but through thousands of edits by hundreds of editors over a period of eighteen years. Which isn't to say the article can't be improved, and if you wish to improve it, I urge you to read the discussions above and the Talk page archives first, where this very question has been discussed many times, at length, and then come back with your suggestions for improvements, where other editors can discuss it with you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the many archived discussions on the phrasing of the lede, see Talk:Trans woman/Definitions for an examination of how RS’s define this term. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I see there has been an RfC before. I say we have the discussion to change this sentence to A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman. This sentence was one of the 2 options the community accepted at some capacity and the closer of the RfC said there is no prejudice against having an RfC for this phrasing. This sentence is most consistent with what RS regards a trans woman to be. Lets take a look at what Talk:Trans woman/Definitions provided by RoxySaunders above. I do not believe it is appropriate to use definitions 4 (biased LGBT advocacy group), 12 (Newsweek post-2013, unreliable at WP:RSP), 16 (a book by someone who does not appear to be an expert who is merely supporting "reproductive rights"), and 30 (biased LGBT advocacy group). So with that, lets see if the literature likes to describe a trans woman as a woman who was assigned male at birth or a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman.. RS supporting person who was assigned male but identifies as a woman in the Talk:Tran woman\Definitions count to be 28. Many of these RS are among the most credible, including the Lancet, American Psychological Association, American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, Centers for Disease Control, Cornell University, American Academy of Pediatrics, John Hopkins Medical School, Princeton University, and the National Health Service. Just to count the sourcing that supports the current revision, I count 6. Of these the most credible is the ones from Harvard Medical School and the BC Centers for Disease Control. 3 RS are not particularly credible, with one being a standard dictionary, one from the American Society for Engineering Education (they certainly don't have expertise on this issue), and one from a government website. I'm really not seeing an abundance in literature to use the phrasing we have now. We should do what RS says and change this sentence. An RfC may be warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted before, the problem with "idenfifies as" language is that in contemporary discourse it tends to imply "... but is not". Sources that use "has a female gender identity" or "has a gender identity as a woman", for example, cannot be read as supporting "identify as" without severely distorting their meaning, and few recent sources use "identify as". But other options could certainly be considered - I would suggest that multiple editors propose and try to whittle down options before any future RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

How about this: A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth whose gender identity is female. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The ratio of WP:MEDRS's using one phrasing over the other is a valid concern, but not a brand new one. To paraphrase L235's closure of the Archive 4 RfC, some said the lack of sources which explicitly say "is a women" supports the more neutral "is a person". Others said the sources' use of the phrase trans women at all implies that the authors do still believe we are women (otherwise they would say MtF trans person or some-such alternative).

There are lots of valid points either way, and I'm not violently opposed to either version. I do, however, empathize with the concern that any variant of "person who identifies as female" implicitly casts doubt on trans womanhood, so I favor the status quo.

Regardless, this is a perennial discussion, and it seems as if every possible angle has been argued ad nauseum, to no conclusive result. I'm careful not to improperly invoke the WP:Snowball clause, but unless there's a new and highly persuasive argument in favor of Option 2, or a clear change in the consensus of sources or editors, I really don't think rehashing the RfC would produce any useful result. Sincerely, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There's going to have to be another RfC at some point.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you may be interested in the discussion above: #A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. As the question there shows, it's a confusing sentence if one is not already familiar with the discourse in this area. The current definition does a poor job of educating readers on what the topic actually is. Sources usually use another family of definitions which emphasize the crucial concept of gender identity. The current wording is reminiscent of a political slogan, rather than being educational, and is in clear violation of WP:DUE based on the abundant evidence of the subpage.

Newimpartial above alludes to sources that say "has a gender identity as a woman", and while they say that this doesn't support "identifies as" for our text, I would argue that regardless, the reverse is true - that definitions mentioning gender identity as "identifies as" support it. So perhaps a viable proposal - still requiring passing an RfC, but this is just brainstorming - would be:

A trans woman was assigned male at birth but has a gender identity as a woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Agree with referencing Gender identity for the sake of a complete and useful definition, but not exactly sure of the best way to do so. I see the merit in sidestepping the woman vs. person debate (doomed to continue for eternity), but I don't love starting the article with "A trans woman was/has ...", as it reads more like a general factual statement than an actual definition (MOS:FIRST). The phrase "... has a gender identity as a woman" seems a bit clunky (not sure whether Newimpartial was actually quoting any particular source), but some addition along these lines (e.g. "... but has a female gender identity" ... "... but identifies as a woman" etc.) seems due and well-established by sources.

My preferred option (proposed in the linked discussion, and evoked generally favorable reactions from Newimpartial and Bodney) is still just to extend the current sentence with such a clause, i.e. "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is female." What do you think of this? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 05:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said then, I really think this reads poorly due to redundancy - "is a woman...but whose gender identity is female". It jumps back and forth with gendered terms and probably satisfies no one. It has a similar potential for confusion with unfamiliar readers by immediately using the term "woman" which carries a lot of baggage and assumption of female sex/sex-assignment. I wrote A trans woman was assigned..., yes, largely because it cuts the Gordian knot of "is a woman" vs. "is a person", but I do think it still works as a definition. Personally I have no issue with the latter anyway, and it outnumbers the former handily in the subpage. Perhaps I am overestimating the opposition to it. Another thing is that we shouldn't expect all of us here to come to full agreement - that is why an RfC was necessary in the past and will be in the future. All the same, testing the waters is still worthwhile. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders: why is it beneficial to say A trans woman is a woman...? It's redundant and clunky phrasing. To support this awkward phrasing, you need to provide abundant RS support. I think saying A trans woman is person... or a A trans woman is an individual... is obviously more readable and consistent with how nearly every source is saying. I don't see the argument or in saying woman twice together like that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this phrasing is fairly common, no? E.g. international airport: An international airport is an airport with customs and border control facilities enabling passengers to travel between countries. Loki (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The main issue is this is not what the majority of RS are saying a trans woman is. However, I contend that the wording isn't great, same is true for international airport. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that "A trans woman is a woman..." is redundant. If you mean that the definition repeats a portion of the headword, then yes—obviously it does; but this is not a bad thing, and is not "redundant" with respect to a definition of a compound expression like "trans woman". While one might make assumptions about the meaning of a compound expression based on its elements, language is not logical and assumptions may be incorrect and should not be left to the imagination of the reader. A definition should define, even if it means repeating a core element, and not leave the reader guessing. A flying boat is not a boat, and a silent butler is not a butler. What is an electric car? It's not a car with a battery that starts the car, runs the on-board computer, adjusts the fuel mix automatically, and operates the signaling system, the entertainment center, and the heater electrically. If reliable sources support "a trans woman is a woman...", then that is exactly what it should say; anything less, *especially* in such a fraught topic, would be a gross disservice to the reader. As far as "a trans woman is an individual...", see elongated yellow fruit. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A transwoman is biologically male, not "assigned male". What our own article says: "Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm". Do trans women do this or not? If yes then they are clearly biological males with a female identity. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC) According to WP policy. the editing of this article is to be based on the reliable sources on this topic, not by your feelz. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Are you sure it is my "feelz" that are the issue here? Also "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." does not appear to have any RS so your argument about it does not seem to have any merit. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC) You don't seem very good at finding and reading sources. Pro tip: they are normally found in the article body. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Assigned by whom (sounds like weasel wording overall) and by what criteria? Biology is not mere "assignement" and the article for "male" here defines male biologically. Not as some kind of mere arbitrary "assigment" by an unknown party. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC) What part of In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender do you not understand? Also, the answers to your first questions are readily found in Sex assignment, which is wikilinked from this article. You want to argue against the reliable sources on this topic, but that isn't what Talk pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "can". But is that what "assigned male" means? Maybe people who are clearly POV (your being genderqeueer and your editing history speaks volumes) on an issue and so emotionally engaged in it, should stay out of it? Also, if trans women are simply women, what are they transitioning from? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Also, that claim has no RS and so should be removed. :) 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC) IP, I take it from your criticisms that you have no gender, and are therefore, supremely neutral. I am fascinated by this and would love to know more. Do you offer a pamphlet or some such? Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC) If your belief is that one simply cannot be neutral/factual, that's all on you, but I would have to ask then, why are you here? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC) My point is that criticizing someone else's objectivity for their gender positioning is like accusing them of being biased because they breathe oxygen. Also, with regard to neutrality, I would urge you to do some reading in the philosophical domain of epistemology. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, if you cannot comprehend that someone could be neutral/factual, that's on you. "Through yourself, you get to know others." But why are you here if you cannot be NPOV? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Well, first of all, perhaps you should re-read WP:NPOV, because it's really more about fidelity to reliable sources than neutrality. I don't care for the nomenclature, but it's a bit late for that now. I am not saying neutrality is impossible (though I do think it requires one to analyze one's own implicit biases). You have said (I paraphrase) "given your beliefs on gender, you cannot be neutral." And I am saying you also have beliefs about gender. Thus your criticism can be aimed just as much at you as anyone else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "You have said (I paraphrase) "given your beliefs on gender, you cannot be neutral." And I am saying you also have beliefs about gender." So you're saying that biology is a mere belief? Fascinating. What else is mere belief? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, this is where epistemology would serve you well. It's a bit dense, but Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a classic starting place for such an inquiry. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC) I'm not asking Kant, I'm asking you. You know, the pseudointellectual one. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC) And I think we're done here. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Kibbitzing here, but the terms we use for people who refuse to read the reliable sources on a topic don't normally include neutral/factual. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, you're clearly very emotionally engaged (as these "creative" ways of saying "you're mean and stupid" demonstrate) so should probably stay away from articles where you cannot be NPOV. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC) IP, if you read the article Male - as I have repeatedly suggested you do - you will see that it provides a reliable source. As far as your earlier comments are concerned, of course "assigned male" refers to Sex assignment. Is the article text not clear to you? Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender." That's it. No [source] there. Again, is this "assignment" some arbitrary opinion or is it based on biology? :D Anyways, I didn't come here to argue with you, it is clear that facts will not sway you, and you are entitled to your beliefs - but you are not entitled to censoring the talk page. That is all really. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC) The source, which I have given above for your convenience, is in the body of Male, exactly where it is supposed to be. You know that most Wikipedia articles have a lead section that summarizes the body, and the references are generally in the body, yes? And I don't know why you keep asking questions about "assignment" that are answered in sex assignment, which is wikilinked from the lead text you were complaining about questioning. At some point, a degree of competence is required for any collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Speaking of the "sex assignment" article, the sources there likely need serious review. Take source 23 for example, is https://books.google.se/books?id=IfcuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA301&redir_esc=y "Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive" ..Are such really to be regarded as reliable source? :D What is the criteria applied for reliable source there? Was there any at all? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:RS for that information. An article Talk page is not a tutorial. Also, sticking out your tongue after each question doesn't really radiate civility. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Besides what has been said it is a true statment backed up with extensive reaserch. And wikipedia is not a place to bring a debate on people's self as this talk page edit by you seems to be attempting to say. RJS001 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

Synchise (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Libido section : I think you should point out that the study compared trans women after sex-reassignment surgery and on hormone-replacement therapy with ovulating women. I think that the current wording can be extremely misleading.

p Synchise (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"Assigned"

This is obviously going nowhere. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Assigned male"? The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male seems to contradict this and defines male in no uncertain, biological, terms. "Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm, which fuses with the larger female gamete,[1][2][3] or ovum, in the process of fertilization." Indeed, the word "assigned" does not appear a single time there. Why this contradiction? It would seem plain as day that this article is not NPOV. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please do not make personal attacks, as you did in your edit summary here. I'm confident you wouldn't have said that cis people were unable to achieve NPOV when writing articles on cis people, or white people on white people, amirite? Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "Please" do not remove talks simply because they hurt your feelings and I won't have to point it out. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Oh, I didn't do any such thing. I removed a comment that is off-topic and cannot possibly contribute to improving the article. But you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS again. Try to be CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC) I'd be more civil if you were. But removing talks because you dislike them is not. Pointing out a contradiction (and in a statement that is unsourced) is not forum.. But you seem intent on turning this into one though, all while saying it shouldn't be? I'm not the one who started arguing with you and engaging in editing wars, that's you. :D 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC) How can your opening comment here contribute to the improvement of this article? I am at a loss. Your first full sentence is false - The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male seems to contradict this and defines male in no uncertain, biological, terms - showing you didn't even read the entire lead of the article you are citing. What is more, your quotation, "assigned male", doesn't kink to Male; rather it is part of the phrase "assigned male at birth" which is wikilinked to Sex assignment. Not only is there no contradiction: your (possibly rhetorical) questions are actually answered directly in the wikilink that you have presumably declined to read. So how is any editor supposed to use your comment as a means to improve this article? This article is, as it should be, based on reliable sources (reals) and not on POV (your feelz). You have not pointed out any contradictions or unsourced statements whatsoever - all you have done is vent your spleen on a topic you apparently don't understand, and that isn't what Talk pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC) So your argument is based on a single part of the article which also happens to be about the only unsourced part. :D Provide a source for that part of the male article then as it doesn't have any. Without that, there's no reason to take that claim seriously. You should probably also add a good motivation for why human sex should be treated differently from that of any other animal. I'm sure you have one, right? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Well, I prefer not to be killed and eaten by humans - or owned by humans, for that matter - so I would certainly rather be treated differently from ... any other animal, in many respects. There are lots of concepts - like nationality - that don't apply to non-human animals, and it just happens that gender identity and sexuality are two of these. As far as the unsourced nonsense goes, the source is at the place in Male where it is supposed to be. WP:CIR, baby. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC) So you're saying saying that human biology is inherently different? Do you have some sort of fact to back that up? Something that would justify such ideas influencing wikipedia articles? Your emotional beliefs or rants about being eaten do not really count. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Nobody is saying that human biology is inherently different; we are saying that humans have dimensions other animals don't. You can't "raise a filly as a boy", for example, but you can certainly socialize humans based on their sex assignment (and most cultures do). Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Images perputrate steryotypes

Im concered with the images in this artcile as they seem to be based around finding a steryotype of trans women to show here and I dont think that is helpful. It would be like having someone dressed in a sterytypicic clothes for an ethnicities page. some people do look and dress like that but everyone at all. RJS001 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The people in the photos are trans women. I don't know what else we could do. RJS001 are you saying you want some pictures where they are dressed less flamboyantly? Even if that is your concern, I wouldn't say the images of Rachel Levine and the one with Andrea James and Calpernia Addams are dressed in the stereotypical way I believe your implying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

eh its not the dress so much as i feel sorta like the way they looked thye tried to find trna women that met steryotypes on trans women more than anything RJS001 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We are limited by the images available in commons. If the images are flamboyant not much we can do. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I know because I'm the one that's added the majority of the images in the lead of the article and spent many hours on that. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

are you saying this because you think they look trans or is it because they pass as cis? — Tazuco 23:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of the pictures seem out of place in their sections; for example, I'm not sure what the connection is between Rachel Levine and terminology, or between Laverne Cox and sexual orientation. Also, I think there's too much of a focus on entertainers and beauty pageant winners; I suggest swapping in some pictures of people who work in other fields, like Clara Barker (engineer) or Sophie Wilson (computer scientist). Cheers, gnu57 01:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of spreading the focus of the images of trans women. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea, but perhaps its best to add the pictures rather than swap them, at least regarding the existing pictures of trans women from under-represented racial backgrounds. I'd hate for the page to be overwhelmingly white trans women for a number of reasons. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW I'm not entirely sure what images we could use for sections like sexual orientation. To my knowledge there's no images of trans women's weddings or other stuff like that. Same with terminology, as adding an image to an abstract linguistic section will always be hard. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant trans women's weddings literally or rhetorically as an example, but there are CC-licensed photos from Ruby Corado's wedding. Politanvm ^talk 01:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What about adding a picture of Liniker? She is gender non-conforming, black, and trans woman.— Tazuco 21:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have good images of her. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

definitly agree on that. racial diveristy in the images needs to be made sure its there. RJS001 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

Re: 'Trans women have a female gender identity', this is incorrect. Trans women have a gender identity that is that of a woman (social construct) not female (biologically based) 81.174.151.54 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

OUP/Lexico has changed the dictionary definition of trans woman used on this page to remove the phrase 'transitioned from male to female'. The updated definition is: 'A person whose birth sex was male but who lives and identifies as a woman; a transgender woman.' (see https://www.lexico.com/definition/trans_woman) 81.174.151.54 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The words 'male' and 'female' are also used to describe genders. Look it up. -Daveout(talk) 14:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Discrimination against trans women" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Discrimination against trans women and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 25#Discrimination against trans women until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Tazuco 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Section on the cotton ceiling

Hi all,

I’d like to add a section on the cotton ceiling. What kinds of sources can I use? Thanks Quiefe (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Quiefe:, Several issues to consider here. First, to answer your question: you can use independent, reliable, secondary sources to support added content. You will find that there are plenty of opinions about the cotton ceiling in self-published sources like WP:BLOGs, or on YouTube, but these are generally inadmissible at Wikipedia. If in doubt, check the reliable sources noticeboard.

However, reliable sourcing is not the only requirement for new content; there is also the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT: considering the voluminous amount of information available on the topic of "trans women" in dozens of published books, hundreds of scholarly articles, and thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of web pages, does the relatively limited topic of the cotton ceiling have enough support in reliable sources to be worth a mention here at all? It's basically a question of proportion: we can't cover every possible issue about trans women; this is an encyclopedia article, so it's a summary, so it covers just the more important things. You might have a better chance at an article with narrower scope, such as Transmisogyny, but even there the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT would arise.

Another approach, where WP:DUE WEIGHT would not be an issue, is to write an entire article about it. But then, other requirements would come into play, such as WP:Notability. I've considered this topic before, and imho it's not notable; it was a flash in the pan for a while when it first came out, with opinions flying all over, but not much serious coverage; since then, it has had little staying power, and most of what's available is inadmissible opinion articles and first-person accounts. But that's just my opinion. If you'd like to consider that option, you could try starting a WP:DRAFT such as Draft:Cotton ceiling. Fair warning: writing a new article is more difficult than just adding content to an existing one, and in the end, if the topic is judged to be not notable, your new article will never get past the draft stage, so that's a risk. You could try asking at the WP:LGBT Studies WikiProject or at Wikipedia talk:Notability whether folks there would consider this a notable topic or not. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

it has an entry at wiktionary. Quiefe (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Quiefe Well what are you looking to say about it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is hardly a standard of notability for an encyclopedia article. Equivamp - talk 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary also has definitions for abibliophobia, honorificabilitudinitatibus, and clbuttic, but these would not necessarily be notable encyclopedia topics. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders:, clbuttic is my new fave word. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Clbuttic is actually covered under Scunthorpe problem (and is even a redirect there.) In theory I think "Clbuttic mistake" or the like could be a valid title for it based on a quick search, it's just not the one we went with. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical Article

"A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." Can anyone explain this sentence because it appears to be nonsensical? The Wiki article on 'woman' that is linked in the sentence states that a woman is an adult female and that female is the sex that produces eggs. To be assigned male at birth is to be of the sex that produces sperm, not eggs. What am I missing? Mr Miles (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This article in 2017 had an intro that was coherent: "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman.".

And in 2004 it had an even more coherent intro: "Transwomen are transsexual or transgendered people who were assigned male sex at birth (or, in some rare cases of intersexuality, later) and who feel that this is not an accurate or complete description of themselves, and therefore strive to present in a more female gender role."

What happened?! Mr Miles (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This article has caught up to reality, and its sourcing. The daisy chain of references from here to Woman and from Woman to Female has not. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

...or rather: this article has trans rights activists as gatekeepers, whereas Woman and Female has feminists as gatekeepers. Seems you're implying that Woman should be changed to 'person with a woman's gender identity' - and what do you propose for Female, the same? Mr Miles (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't employ WP:STRAWMAN argumentation; I wouldn't support either of the changes you mention here. Also, I am a feminist. (And you ought to be aware that "trans rights activists" is sometimes employed as a dog whistle, though that is more true of the initialism.)

Concerning your POV on these matters, are you still under the impression that the Singular they represents "Critical theory" and will be dropped once the detransitioners class-action lawsuits start? That's a fairly, err, "robust" POV for editing in a discretionary sanctions area. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so provide me with a steelman, what is the 'reality' of woman if not female human? Mr Miles (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources demonstrate conclusively that "female" has multiple, differing and overlapping, meanings depending on context. For human beings, many/most of those meanings concern Gender. So I deny the premise of your implied syllogism. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Miles, if you have reliable sources that you would like us to consider -- or even better, proposals for concrete changes backed by reliable sources, that would be a helpful way forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Intro is currently incoherent. For one thing, intros should reflect the content of the article which, eg, states: "trans women... identify as a woman.", whereas the unsourced intro states 'are women'. And the point I've already made, that the linked article woman states their identifying characteristic is being female, so trans women are not women but are males who identify as women. Mr Miles (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)