Talk:Outline of transgender topics/Archive 2

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

To Do List

Please put only short notices here about what needs to be done. If there is something that should be discussed, make an new heading for the debate below the other debates. Thanks!

  • Gender reassignment therapy articles; many of those are quite stubby. Also, see below for other question.
  • Somebody please comment on Talk:Transwoman regarding the sexual orientation of transwomen post-transitioning. Ms. Driver insists the numbers are similar to those of cisgendered women, which is not exactly what one encounters in most groups. -- AlexR 00:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
    Please have a look, it's getting worse with each round! I also requested comment, but these subjects don't generate much. -- AlexR 22:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
AlexR, you know, from my viewpoint, what you're doing looks very rude. --Eequor 23:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I may not be handling Ms. Driver with velvet gloves, I admitt that, but only because I had that debate a few times to often. (The TS "vs." TG one.) But I am not intentionally rude, and certainly it is not rude to ask for more comments instead of having this escalate into an edit war - especially if the edits become so strange that a direct reply from me would probably be a triffle too sarcastic. (And I hope "strange" was not too rude, either.) -- AlexR 00:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I suggesting taking that debate to the bottom of the page, since it is not a "to-do". If my request for comment is inappropriately written, please feel free to rewrite it, but the matter does need attention from others. -- AlexR 00:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
The discussion belongs here until a consensus is reached about what is the right thing to do. --Eequor 01:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Medical treatment articles

General debate about whether medical stuff should go into its own articles

Information about Gender reassignment therapy is currently spread over a number of articles, especially

That does not make much sense to me, I'd rather take anything but the most general statements out of the various articles and put them into articles about the medical procedures instead. There are two reasons for that:

  • First, having medical treatment does not necessarily depend on the exact diagnosis or self-identification of a person, but on their personal needs. Therefore having information about SRS in "Transsexual" does not make too much sense, because many non-transsexual transgenders have them, too.
  • And second, I don't think that the average reader is particularly interested in medical details about various surgeries, but having so much space in the article only furthers the idea that being trans* is about that surgery, which it is not. Bottom surgery is of course very important to many transwomen, but it is not at the core of being trans*. And most transmen don't put all that much emphasis on bottom surgery at all, for various reasons. Usually far more important to them is top surgery and hormones. So we do project an image here that is not only not quite accurate, but actually can be quite harmfull; just check Blanchard and Bailey.

Are there any objections to that, and if there are, are they NPOV? ("I don't want those freaks to be able to get medical treatment/name changes/whatever!" is not exactly uncommon, but hardly NPOV.) If there are non, I'll start sorting the information in the next couple of days, the resulting articles probably need more work, though. -- AlexR 17:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Gender Reassignment Therapy" eh? That sounds like another one of those lame let's come up with a new word just so everyone will dislike it equally phrases.
Taking information specific to surgery or HRT out of transsexual and transgender is fine with me. Just make sure to put in the necessary pointers to those articles, because to many cissexuals surgery and HRT is what transsexualism is all about.
Didn't we have a heated discussion about HRT last year though? I recall that some folks didn't like the emphasis on transsexual HRT in an article they thought to be about post-menopausal and other HRTs.
I still think it is confusing to talk about transgenders who have SRS. To me, having SRS (i.e. bottom surgery) equals transsexual, anything else is called transgender. But it has been pointed out before that these terms are only used this way in the Netherlands.
Not all transwomen think that SRS is the most important part of a transition :o)
-- Kimiko 23:41, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking about doing that myself at one point. If you wanna be bold and go ahead, go ahead :) Dysprosia 01:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good you agree, then I'll do it. Just did want to make sure (as sure as possible, anyway) that this wouldn't result in an edit war ;-)
"Gender Reassignment Therapy" is probably jut on of several possible terms one could have choosen, but it does come handy to have one that covers all the medical stuff, and it already has some Google hits, too, and it is accurate. It is a lot shorter than "Hormone Replacement Therapy, Sexual Reassigment Surgery and/or any other medical medical procedures related to transitioning" or some other monster. And "HRT and SRS" don't necessarily work too well when you talk about transmen, because many don't opt for SRS, but for mastectomy and hysterectomy.
I also did not want to imply that for most transwomen it is all about SRS, that is the absolute exception. However, sometimes so much emphasis is put on SRS (with a lot of help from doctors and some support groups as well as the public view) that it gets a totally unrealistic importance; which of course usually results in a catastrophy. Ah, well, I guess you know what I am talking about.
And of course there will be pointers and some information in the articles themselves, but I just don't think that all the details should be in them. -- AlexR 01:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty sensible conclusion. Ambivalenthysteria 07:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How about something like Medical aspects of transsexuali{sm,ty} or Transsexual HRT and surgery? -- Kimiko 08:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Because a) it is not only transsexual people who have it, as mentioned before, but also transgendered and intersex people, and b) medical aspects sounds a bit as if it were inevitable to have it all, which obviously it is not, and c) HRT and surgeries (plural, if you please) is not all, either. Epilation is neither of the two, nor is logopedia; not to mention psychotherapy, which for many is part of the gender reassignment therapy. -- AlexR 13:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
All good points. I'm still not entirely convinced that Gender Reassignment Therapy is a good term though. It is a) not in common use, and b) gender can not be changed, only sex can (and that not even completely). -- Kimiko 23:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Errr... Gender is not just "gender identity", but also "gender role". And the gender role is of *course* changed, that is the most important part of transitioning; and medical procedures help doing that. (They can't do it on their own, though, of course.) And "gender reassignemnt therapy" at least gets some Google hits, 215 to be precise, "sexual reassignment therapy" only gets 16, "Medical aspects of transsexuali{sm,ty}" gets 10 and 3, and "Transsexual HRT and surgery" gets 0. So while GRT is not all that common, it is most certainly and clearly the most common of all that were proposed. "Gender reassignment" also gets 19,100 hits, and judging from the first couple of pages, that rather often refers to surgery or other medical stuff. "Sexual reassignment" only gets 7,370. So I think if we go by usage, GRT is the one to use. -- AlexR 00:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After the cleanup, still a lot to do

Thanks to Dysprosia and Kimiko for cleaning up after me after the reordering of the medical articles. My concentration just went down the drains after juggling more than a dozen open pages.
After having a look at the surgery articles, I have been wondering, should we further split the articles about surgery and make one for genital reassignment therapy and one for each other procedure? Given the - definitely improvable - amount of information on them, right now that is IMO not yet necessary, but what do you think? -- AlexR 10:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Genital reassignment therapy? Methinks that might be taking the "lets-make-up-our-own-terms-for-stuff syndrome" a little too far. Why not just use the term in common use? -- Ambivalenthysteria
I agree. It's one thing to split up topics into multiple articles, but introducing terms that are (almost) never used by the people concerned is not something an encyclopedia should do IMHO. "Genital Reassignment Therapy/Surgery" is one such term. It does occur, but almost everyone concerned talks about "SRS" (=sex reassignment surgery) instead. Naming an article "Genital Reassignment Therapy/Surgery" would incorrectly suggest that that is what it is called.
I'm aware of the inaccuracy of some (many even) such terms, but as AlexR pointed out, WP should not tell people what term to use but rather inform them what terms are actually (and commonly) used. Bloating an article by listing every possible term for a process or procedure is also not a good idea IMHO. If you encounter one of the rarer ones, a simple redirect will do. -- Kimiko 09:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
My mistake - I meant to write Genital Reconstructive Surgery which is used a few times in the IJT, and I think it is safe to assume that they use proper words. Not always the right ones, maybe, but proper ones. It's Google hits are 359, not very high, but not a new word, either. It's also often used in news:soc.support.transgendered. BTW, "genital reassignment surgery" gets even more, 439 hits. And the WP should indeed not tell people how to use words, but it should not give them false information, either. Otherwise, we might as well put this stuff under sex change.
The "Genital Reassignement Surgery" debate is already in the Archive, sorry, Kimiko, maybe you don't use it, but a lot of other people do. Not to mention that most people understand SRS to be the one between the legs, not all others also more or less often done. Which leads, incidentally, often to some discrimination of transmen who did not have that surgery (and are therefore regarded as "unfinished"), which is rather uncommon among them, but had Mastectomy and Hysterectomy, which are even more common than GRT among transwomen.
But let's return to the basic problem: The articles SRS ftm and SRS mtf (and their particular title is a secondary question) both contain information on several surgical procedures, but also have sub-points about specific procedures. That does not make all that much sense, basically. OTOH, there are several procedures about which we currently have relatively little information, and putting them into their own articles would produce quite stubby articles. So how shall we proceed here? -- AlexR 10:15, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Merge SRS ftm and SRS mtf into SRS? Keep all the surgical-type info in one place? (Just a thought) Dysprosia 10:25, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea - for one thing, they are completely different procedures, obviously, plus, it has indeed happened in the past that transmen-info was replaced by transwomen-info, because well, obviously the person who did that did not consider any information on transmen relevant. And that person is not alone in that perception, either. (How often have you heard sentences like: "All trans(-sexual, -gendered, -whatever) people just want to live as perfectly normal women!"? I have heard them far too often. Not to mention that the people who said that, when you reminded them that this is not exactly the case, react indignantly and answer something like "Well, you cannot expect me to think of everything, can you?".) Many doctors are known to think along similar lines, not to mention the general public.
And there is an additional problem: Some surgeries are not done on transpeople alone, Phalloplasty is also plastical surgery done on an existing penis, and breast augmentation is not done in in transwomen only; neither are mastectomy and hysterectomy done on transmen only. So these need to retain their own articles, anyway. -- AlexR 11:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

JulieADriver

I think, as you might have noticed, we have a little problem at hand here. She wrote me a very strange mail, and although I usually don't consider publishing mails to be polite, I dedided to put this one here, since I guess it is quite relevant to all working on those articles. My answer is below.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 01:45:10 GMT, JulieADriver wrote:
I apologize for deleting the references to transgender people on topics I thought were for transsexual people only. I'll agree not to do that anymore, if you also agree not to remove content from subjects purely about transsexualism (transsexualism itself, and basically anything that has "transsexual" on it). You're the transgender expert, and I'm the transsexual expert.
I'm sorry, but I think there is a minor misunderstanding here. The trans*-articles on the WIkipedia are not a territory that can (or should) be divided, nor are you and I the only ones who work on these articles. I already pointed you to the talk page of the "List of transgender-related topics", that is the place those actively editing (and watching) the trans*-articles debate matters before we start mayor edits.
I also sincerely doubt that you are a "transsexual expert", your edits did not exactly show that. All they are showed was a TS-bias, which is POV and has therefore no place in the Wikipedia.
Also, I have no idea why you think I am a "transgender-only-expert". Transgender and transsexual are very close to each other, and I think I know a lot about both, not only by being a transman myself, but also by having worked both in counseling and trans-advocacy for years.
So I am sorry, but your proposal is absurd. I invite you once more to Talk:List of transgender-related topics so that you can become part of the team of people who maintain these articles instead of somebody we have to clean up after. I will also put this mail and my answer there, because I am quite worried about your attutude, and other than that, your mail did not contain any particularly private information; so I'll make an exception here.
Alex

Also looks to me as if a minor edit on transgender is in order - I think the two definitions of transgender - as a catch-all-term and as a particular group that is distinctively different from other trans*-people - will be rather confusing. -- AlexR 11:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello everyone, it appears I've been given a little bit of fame here, but since no one has replied here about me, and only two people have written to me, including AlexR, that is a strong indication of how overblown things have appeared here. First of all, let me introduce myself. I am a 21 year-old, transsexual woman who has had sex reassignment surgery two years ago. I believe I am therefore qualified to contribute to Wikipedia and therefore correct any errors or omissions there have been in terms of transsexuality. I have admitted to deleting references to transgendered people from SRS pages because I did not believe they (unlike transsexual people) sought, or were able to seek, SRS. Apparently, I was mistaken and have since apologized. Now, an important fact. A growing number of transsexual people are wishing to distance themselves from the transgender community. Simply put, we need our own space. We're not saying that we want nothing to do with you. We even want to help you, and welcome help from you. We can do plenty of things together. We can even be allies. In fact, the transsexual community is allying with the intersexed community to further both of our causes. But we both consider ourselves separate. We both need our "breathing room". I wish to stress that this might be interpreted by some as POV. However, this is fact. The Transsexual Menace, a well-known transsexual activist group, states that: "Transsexuals have been considered a part of the transgender group but because of minoritization in the LGBTTIQQ world there is a growing movement of transsexuals who are disowning the transgender label". I wish to see what the thoughts of other people are on this matter. JulieADriver

My experience is quite different, but I have heard these views before. I think they are represented already in the TG and TS articles. Please do not presume that your point of view is that of the majority of the T* community.
BTW, you seem familiar with TSMenace. Maybe you could compose an article? -- Kimiko 21:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

-- Julie mentions issued here which are actually rather irrelevant to the Wikipedia:
1. minoritization of TS in LGBTTIQQ It is true that all trans-people in the LGBT+ community are a minority, both TS and non-TS. That community therefore is not exactly the place to debate trans-internal matters, but then again, it is not the place to debate gay-internal matters, lesbian-internal matters, and so on. Whether one takes part in that community is a completely free decision of every single person, whichever letter they identify with.
2. transsexuals who are disowning the transgender label I can't really see why the trans-problem of LGBT* is a reason to split along the transsexual - non-transsexual transgender line, that is a trans*-internal matter and has nothing to do with LGBT*. And it is far older than any idea of an LGBT* community; "We are different from them" is something that has split the trans*-community since the 1960s. (The article on Transvestism actually has an overview over the matter, although TS is not its primary concern.)
Trans*-people still often have a lot in common, non-TS-people and TS-people for example looking for doctors, or simply exchanging practical tips. Some breast-binders many transmen use, for example, are very expensive. After surgery, and sometimes before, some people get them on prescription - and after they don't need them any more, they are distributed to those who need them, irrespective of their particular brand of trans*. Same for any tips like "What do I do if I can't get my hands on one of those" or "How to tell my partner" and so on. Then again, transmen of all flavours are rarely suffering from distance-o-mania.
That should not mean, of course, that people who feel they need a space for themselfes should not get it, the should. However, in the case of transsexuals (as well as in some, but by no means all others) this is not just about seeking their own space, but actively discriminating against others. That is a completely different matter.

I could probably go on on that matter for quite a while, but it is rather pointless, because these matters just do not concern the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is a place where information is gathered, not in any way a support group or a a place to form or disown alliances. The fact that some transsexual people do not feel comfortable with transgender is even mentioned in Transgender and Transsexual. That is what the NPOV-policy is about, you know - writing about every relevant aspect of a topic. And relevant is not "relevant to Julie" or "relevant to Alex" or "relevant to whomever" but relevant to the matter at hand. Therefore, removing content or changing it to anybodys particular point of view is just not what should be done in the Wikipedia. If it is an important point not yet covered, that point should be added. Added, not replacing content just because the person replacing it has never heard about it, or, one sometimes has to assume, thought about it.
That is also true if a person assumes she is an expert on a matter, because, well, she has been through it ("I can assure you, every transsexual is a transsexual expert in their direction") . Not only does that make anybody an expert, it is also quite bold to assume that all the other people who already worked on an article knew less about the matter than the new self-styled "expert". (Not to mention several comments in her mails which showed quite clearly that in this case this is a rather optimistic assumption.)

I can therefore only advise Julie once more not to use the Wikipedia to further her decidedly non-neutral peoint of view. If she wants to write political pamphlets, there is plenty of room for that -- outside of the Wikipedia. Inside of the WIkipedia, we all struggle occasionally with what exactly is NPOV, but none of those actively monitoring the transgender topics try to push their particular POV into the articles. And it would be rather nice if we would not have to spend so much time cleaning up after people who confuse the Wikipedia with a promotion platform for their own personal political agenda. -- AlexR 19:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Well spoken, Alex, although you do sound a bit harsh in that last paragraph. -- Kimiko 21:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, guilty as charged. As I already explained in my last mail to Julie as well, I just had that debate - with minor variations - far too often; it has worn my patience somewhat thin (even if Julie belongs to the moderate part of that group), especially since several point in her mails were also patently absurd. It started with the subject line, "Transgenderism" (which was never part of any debate here) and went downhill from there. So I hope I may be forgiven - and I don't think there will be much need of much further debate. -- AlexR 22:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Transsexed/Intersexed are not trans* or transgender!

Italic text Hi, My name is Joëlle-Circé Laramée, I'm the co-founder of " Canadian Transexuals Fight For Rights ( [1] )as well as vice-prsesident of O.I.I. ( Organisation Internationale des Intersexués ) [2].

I was going to come in here and blast away at such silly and crazy propagandandizing arguments that transgender is the same as transsexualism, as if. Yes, it is true that the Tg movement of the last 15 years or so has attempted to co-opt everything Ts in order to profit from our life threatening medical needs. TS men and women are the ones who go towards SRS ( or whatever fits your fancy here ) as it is only they who know themselves to be of the brain sx different from their bodies. When a 'transgender' identified person says that they have had SRS, what is really being said is : I had a transsexed condition and had SRS but I've been brainwashed into thinking I'm something else. Julie was right in this; transsexed and intersexed people around the world are mobilizing against the transgender agenda as we are in no way, playing with gender roles or trying to blend the gender binary...TS people are usually very binary and do identify as the men and women they say they are.... try getting your noses out of TG gender theory books that monsters like John Money first used to convince society that he could take innocent children and have them become the 'gender' he choose for them to be. This is the main difference between TS and TG... TS mostly know themselves as men and women who suffer greatly to become the sex they always were..... TG, well... I'll let you continue playing with it,s definition 'du jour'. Sincerely, Joëlle-Circé Laramée

'Course it's not the same as. Where does it say explicitly that it is? I think the point AlexR has been previously trying to make is that transgender people can obtain SRS type procedures and other sorts of things - ie., that these things are not in the exclusive domain of transsexual men and women.
Point is, the term transgender is currently used as an umbrella term in some instances, and is not in others. Some reject the association of the term, such as yourself. I believe that Wikipedia guidelines point to using the most popular usage, and I think that the umbrella term usage is the most popular, but someone who is more knowledgeable on such matters may want to correct me on both counts. Dysprosia 13:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I've thought transsexual seemed to have the wrong connotations to be used accurately. All of the other -sexual words describe sexual orientation, and TS has nothing to do with sexual orientation except to the uneducated observer. It's about gender, gender roles, and anatomy. Transgender seems a better term.
On the other hand, intersexed refers to anatomy. Maybe a better term would have been transsexed. --Eequor 21:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
That still would have those nasty three letters in them, and, btw, not all intersex people are all that happy with that term; just right now they have more pressing businiess. -- AlexR
Better than a nasty six letters. And surely intersexed is an improvement over hermaphrodite? --Eequor 01:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Depends whom you ask - some intersex people actually prefer hermaphrodite. And the problem with "intersex" is - like with "transsexual" - that some people automatically think its something strange you do in bed. Which is rahter annoying, but as I said, AFAIK it is not a priority at the moment; saving kids from butchers mostly is. -- AlexR 02:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Gods, yes. Butchers who think they're doing the right thing. --Eequor 13:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
As for the usage of the terms, I believe transgender is only properly used as the umbrella term for anything "gender variant". There are separate terms for the various subgroups it covers: crossdresser, shemale, and transsexual. When talking about a specific group it should be made clear which is being referred to. Transgender doesn't have a specific meaning.
Regarding SRS, that very unambiguously identifies a person as being TS. --Eequor 21:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
It does not, SRS (at least wanting it) is one common (but not unchallenged) part of the definition, the other is to want to live as a member of "the opposite" gender. And what do you do with people who had SRS bur flatout refuse to call themselfes Transsexual? Either because they don't like the "sexual", or because they don't like to be supposed to live the other clichee now, or because they don't like the company, or whatever? -- AlexR 00:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what they call themselves. That's their choice. However, wanting to be the opposite gender or having the surgery done means that one is TS. They will always be TS. Surgery doesn't change the fact that the person wasn't born that gender. Going stealth after the surgery really harms the community -- it takes away all that useful knowledge the person learned along the way. TS are all fighting the same thing together and need to stay humbly aware of their own fight and identity so the next generation can be taught. However, what they choose to tell the outside world is their business. --Eequor 01:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Wanting SRS and living as the opposite gender is TS, but not, for example, wanting SRS and living as another gender. By many definitions already calling oneself transwomen instead of woman makes one non-TS. As far as the rest is concerned, I completely agree! -- AlexR 02:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC).
And Transgender has a specific meaning - Transgender are (also) those people who feel that is a sufficient description of themselfes, and the precise shape of it is nobody's business but their own. -- AlexR 00:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
What specific meaning can it possibly have, if the meaning isn't shared? --Eequor 01:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
"I am part of this group" already is a specific meaning. It means "I was born and had a gender assigned to me, but for (whatever) reason that is a false or incomplete description of myself". Of course, you can be more specific, but that is in itself already specific information. If people feel they need to know how exactly my genitals look like, for example, I always feel this is not exactly their business. I don't need a look inside their pants, either, before deciding whether to say Mr or Ms. -- AlexR 02:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
But that's just another way of saying it's an umbrella term. It covers anything "gender variant", whatever that variance is. Telling somebody else one is transgendered gives no indication of what the word might specifically mean. --Eequor 13:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
But it is also a term for those for whom none of the specific terms fits. Because there are just not enough terms to cover everything, in fact, there are not even terms to cover most people, in my opinion. There are quite a few for people who don't opt for GRT (but the ft(M?)s don't feel covered by those, either), but for people who have, want and need GRT and who are not TS there is nothing, so Transgender has to do (and does quite well for most, as far as I can see). -- AlexR 19:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
*sigh* Why are there no unambiguous terms in this field? (that was a rhetorical question, don't bother answering)
Joëlle-Circé, here at Wikipedia we try to represent every (or almost every; I'm afraid it is not possible to satisfy everyone) point of view fairly. While your point of view may be the best or worst one, it is only one point of view. Please accept that. If you feel your point of view (or any other for that matter) is underrepresented by the current text, feel free to correct it. Likewise if you find that some agenda is being propagated. But please do not simply replace it with your own agenda. -- Kimiko 19:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Most of what Mw. Joëlle says is the usual hate-mongering from "proper transsexuals" speaking out against everything that they percieve to be less transsexual than themselfes. People calling themselfes transgender are either freaks trying to "profit" from transsexualis, or brainwashed idiots. Not to mention her idea of what transgender is; which is not exactly correct. I don't think these slurs are worth answering, so let me say just one thing:

Transsexuals as a term for this particular group of people has been cricicised for years. In Germany, we recently were extremely surprised that even a very conservative group of medical care-givers proposed renaming the laws concering it, because they did not think it was either an adequate description, nor did it cover those people who did not meet the strict criteria of F64.0, but who suffered just as much from their situation". Obviously, therefore, even rather conservative groups have understood the problem. And of course there is a far more relavant group that has increasingly adopted the word transgender as an umbrella term: The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, whose SoCs those people love to quote (without having read any of the later editions, obviously). Take the meta data from the INT'L JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM:

The Official Journal of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association
IJ TRANSGENDER on transsexualism, transvestitism, cross dressing and other transgender topics
"To our best knowledge, the INT'L JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM is the first scientific journal on transgenderism. The journal is peer reviewed and its editorial board consists of many leading scientists from all over the world. The journal is peer reviewed and its editorial board consists of many leading scientists from all over the world. Issues are published quarterly and updated with new articles during the quarter.
keywords = transgender transsexual crossdress cross dress transvestism gender identity disorder dysphoria sex change

So obviously, they use transgender as an umbrella term. If that is good enough for the HBIGDA, it is good enough for the Wikipedia, and certainly more NPOV that the rants - or is that already hate speech? - of a small group of transsexual women, who seem to gain most of their self-worth from looking down on a "bunch of freaks". Oh, and BTW, the great wave of TS and IS people mobilizing - well, they are, but bad luck, they actually they are mobilising with us so that we can fight together out common problems.

  • To AlexR: I am growing tired of this stupid conflict. I have never personally attacked you, yet you continue to attack me. I am demanding you cease personally attacking me. If you do not comply, I will request mediation --JulieADriver 21:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Removed here, cause it's hardly a To-Do thing. -- AlexR 22:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Vandal on a category spree

Snowspinner has tried to apply categories to all transgender-articles, however, it has become a completey stupid act of vandalism. For examples, the articles that are listed under 3 - Topics related to transitioning have been moved to 'Category:Sexual transition-related topics' - completely unsorted, and including such undeniably primary sexual matters like "Legal aspects of transsexualism". I tried to correct the worst, but unfortunatley correcting anything in categories has to be done in every article they have been inserted into, and a category cannot be renamed, but only put up onto Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. See Wikipedia:Category for an overview and please help cleaning up after him.

Please also note that he is a candidate for becoming an admin - and if I had had any doubts that he is unsuitable, that would have removed them. Also note that his doing these categories is done because of his quest of remoing the list from HJeteronormativity. See the debate there for more info, if you want to know.

P.S. Snowspinner also removed the 'Category:Transgender-related topics' Dysprosia had put into many of the articles. -- AlexR 21:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I based the categorizing verbatim on List of transgender-related topics. Since nothing was top-level there, nothing wound up top-level in the end result. Since your objection to the entire category system was that it couldn't mirror the format of this, that was what I went with. Otherwise, a number of things (Such as, say, transgender) would have been in transgender-related topics itself, instead of subcategorized. As for the topic title, "transitioning" is not, in and of itself, descriptive in a general sense. There are many kinds of transition. The category means a very specific kind of transition (i.e. these are not topics related to the transition from high school to college) and the category title needed to specify that. Snowspinner 14:31, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, well, one thing is that "sexual transition" is, to put it mildly, false, and second, since it is a sub-category of transgender, transitioning obviously relates to transgender. And I want to add that, as you probably saw for yourself, that the categories obviously to not mirror the list. Just check the list again, and then look how the category looks, and you might be able to see the difference.
As long as categories do not work a lot better, namely, the vertical relations have to be much clearer, and the sorting of and commenting on entries has to be possible, categrories remain useless except for the most basic categorisation. Not to mention that right now there is nothing remotely like order in the system, which renders it even more useless. Don't get me wrong, I am very much for categories, but right now they are pretty much useless, especially for replacing ordered, sorted, and if necessary commented lists. Somethin you obviously noticed yourself, since you did not remove the list from the article, after all. -- AlexR 15:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think you ask too much out of categories. They should be much like see also sections, which are typically not annotated, and should appear in a NPOV manner - i.e. alphabetical instead of some subjective ranking of importance.
Not every order that is not alphabetically is subjective. A list of rulers of a country would probably not be sorted alphabetically, either. And the current order is not one of ranking, but - at least for the most part - one where things are listed in an order that makes sense to read. It does not, for example, make much sense to list "androgynous" first on people and behaviour, because by no means all androgynous people consider themselfes transgender. Reading "transgender" itself first makes a lot more sense. And certainly it makes a lot more sense to read "gender reassignement theory" and "Sex reassignment surgery male-to-female" before one reads "Colovaginoplasty".
Also, I was not the person who claimed that categories are a replacement for this list at least, I told you that at least right now they are not. So stop complaining. -- AlexR 19:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As for deleting the list, as I said, I wasn't going to touch it until you were satisfied with it. But I see now that you're not going to be satisfied with it, because, as you've shown repeatedly before, it is impossible to work with you on anything unless one is inclined to agree with you on every point. Since you're clearly not going to let this or heteronormativity go, and since I'm tired of having my blood pressure go up as much as it does every time I read a post of yours, I'll let you have the articles. Break them to your heart's content. They're off my watchlist. Snowspinner 15:23, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Uh! Look who's talking? Is that the same person who is so excellent at avoiding answering questions? I did ask yesterday for which of the removed bits you needed proof, I even listed each and every one of them. Answer from Snowspinner? None whatever. And I have no idea why you claim I'd "break" the article. I have never "broken" it, not even you claimed so anytime before. I merely protest - and I will keep prostesting - the removal of transgender people or content relevant to them from the article. Just as I have, btw, made sure that content on LGB and intersex people did not get removed, either, or that nobody got discriminiated by trolls who wanted to "protect society against these horrors".
I have to admitt that when you came in, I had hoped that you could provide some content to the article, but I have to say, with no content whatsoever you provided there, and the hours I spent cleanig up after you, don't expect my to cry now. And kindly keep your word. -- AlexR 19:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I do agree with you in some cases the modified categorization is a bit of an ugly mess (and I'll try and fix things), but perhaps calling people vandals won't help aid things. Dysprosia 22:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Despite what some people might think ;-) I am not that quick to judge people; however, Snowspinner has been a pain in my lower back for a while now; all related to Heteronormativity. In this case, he simply, just a day after he stated that he knew little about trans* at all, decided to push the category-thingy, because he wants this list removed from the article. Just why he thinks he can get away with this is another question. (And I can't think of any decent reason for it, either.)
BTW, many bits of the transgender stuff from the article were removed, but since Sam Spade was busy "editing" it, I have not bothered to put it back right now; there were also requests for "proof" for the removed statemnts. That bit of the debate is in Talk:Heteronormativity 2.1 - What bothers ME. Maybe somebod from here feels like commenting? One example:
  • often identify as gay or lesbian after transitioning, and are often lumped together with homosexuals relative to their birth sex, although that is almost never correct. changed to
    often identify as gay or lesbian after transitioning, and are often lumped together with homosexuals relative to their birth sex.
Alleged reason for removal: Lack of proof. (Something that only seems to applie to anything relating to transgender people, but neither to LGB nor intersex people.) Use this comparison to see what was changed or removed: [3] -- AlexR 00:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_transgender_topics/Archive_2&oldid=967399088"