|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shemale article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the discussions if considering re-nomination:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
" the term emphasizes the biological sex of a person and neglects their gender. "
Sex and gender are synonymous. I thought Wikipedia was a neutral and unbiased source of information! Here you are displaying a bias towards that absurd "gender theory" nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Labeling the term a "slur" throughout article, straying from the sources, etc.
An IP came along to change the article's material from its neutral state of recognizing that the term is simply a categorization in sex work (a categorization that some transgender or transsexual-identified people embrace, and some people who work as "she-males" but do not identify as transgender embrace as well) while others consider the term offensive/derogatory. The IP changed "term" to "slur" throughout, misrepresented sources, etc. I reverted (followup edit here), stating, "Revert. Non-neutral and straying from the sources. The term is mainly used in pornography, and it's not used there as a slur. We already note well enough in the article that the term is considered a slur/offensive by LGBT people.other people. [...] WP:Dummy edit: I meant 'sex work' more so than I did 'pornography.' My point is that it's a category more than it is a slur in sex work. It can be a slur regardless (including in sex work), but we already note this." I gave the IP a warning. The showed up again, stating, "moved GLAAD quote to the first paragraph and fixed its citation. slight terminology fixes (transwomen to trans women, 'male-to-female transsexual people' to trans women) added a link to the TERF wikipedia page, & time period to medical section for context)." I reverted again, stating, "This is NOT what the sources state. STOP YOUR POV editing."
My issue is clear: This term is offensive to many, especially to transgender people. That stated, as noted in the "Connotations" section of the article, it is also embraced by some transgender people who work in sex work and by those in sex work do not identify as trans/transgender. In sex work, the term is simply a category, usually without the intention of being a slur. It's also a term that has been used by some researchers who seemingly did not consider it a slur (at the time at least). So I do not think we simply categorize the term as a slur. Many LGBT are offended by the term queer, while many other LGBT have embraced the term queer; we cover both sides in the Queer article. It's neutral. This article should be as neutral as it can be as well.
Jim1138, Oshwah and Materialscientist (a few editors seen on the latest page in the edit history), any opinions on this? I would want to hear from RobinHood70, but I just saw that RobinHood70 retired earlier this year, which explains why the IP's second edit stood for a day. Rivertorch/Rivertorch's Evil Twin, as a number of people know, you edit LGBT topics. Do you have any opinion on this? Trystan, TechBear and EvergreenFir, since you all edit the Queer article and other LGBT articles, do you have any opinions on this? I will contact the IP again to let the IP know that I have started a discussion here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I'm going to be dragged into this.... It is frequently used as a slur. Some of my trans* friends get called this regularly. It has been used as a slur on diverse television programs, from Family Guy to L&O:SVU. Trying to limit this article ONLY to the context of sex work is not neutral and thus is a violation of Wikipedia policy and practice. I've never looked at this article before, but now that I have, I think more consideration should be given to the experience of people who are targeted by the word, as that is probably far more common than you might think. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- TechBear, thanks for weighing in. I am well aware that the term is frequently used as a slur. The article is also clear about that. I have not argued that we should limit this article ONLY to the context of sex work. The article is not limited in that way. Like I just told the IP on the IP's talk page: "IP, we are supposed to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. WP:Due weight is a part of the WP:Neutral policy. Yes, many transgender people consider shemale a slur; other transgender people, especially those in sex work, embrace the term. In sex work, the term is simply a category, usually without any intention of being a slur. And regardless of your feelings about the term transsexual, the terms transgender and transsexual are not always used interchangeably. Some people you would categorize as transgender do not identify as transgender, but rather as transsexual. The term transsexual is not offensive to all, as made clear in the Transgender and Transsexual articles, and in past discussions on those talk pages. And when sources state "transsexual," that is usually what they mean, and we should usually follow their lead, not change the term to "transgender," which, these days, is commonly used as an umbrella term for all gender-nonconforming people. All of this is why I've had issues with your edits to the Shemale article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's also important to me, for any Wikipedia article, that we use the LGBT term that the person identifies with. This is why I just changed the Kate Bornstein mention from "transsexual" to "gender non-conforming." The IP, as seen in the IP's contributions, dislikes the term transsexual, but we should be sticking to what the sources state and/or self-identification (per MOS:IDENTITY). The Relationship of transsexual to transgender section of the Transsexual article addresses the transgender vs. transsexual matter. And, as noted, so does the Transgender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am naive on the matter. I don't believe I have heard the word spoken: TV and films included. If a word was considered offensive to one group and embraced by another only discussing one case might be offensive to the other group. i.e saying a word is a slur being offensive to the group that embraced the word. So, I think context important here and that both cases be discussed - embrace and slur. Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only context where I recall ever seeing the term was in porn, years ago, so I have essentially zero personal knowledge of it. From my position of blissful ignorance, I'll say this much: I think Flyer's insistence on following the sources is perfectly correct at present, but I think that if TechBear is right about its frequency of use as a slur, then the article's weight absolutely should be shifted to reflect that. Obviously, finding the sources comes before changing the article, and since the IP's edits are disputed they need to join the discussion here and achieve consensus before attempting more changes of the kind. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for commenting, Jim1138 and Rivertorch's Evil Twin. I agree with your statements about how the article should be formatted. It covers both the slur and sex category aspects. If we give one aspect more weight than the other, then this should be based on the how the term is covered in the literature. I am very open to examining the literature and weighing the sources with regard to both aspects of the terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another thing: There's this comment in the Connotations section: "Chloe Rounsley said, 'She-males are men, often involved in prostitution, pornography, or the adult entertainment business, who have undergone breast augmentation but have maintained their genitalia.'" I have read similar sources in the past, and those sources were usually clearer about the self-identity of the sex workers. Fom those sources, it's clear that some who identify as she-males do not identify as women/trans women. So we should perhaps reword the WP:Lead sentence so that it doesn't limit the term to trans women. I'll look over some sources at a later date. These days, I'm very busy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Reborn: Very late to the party (sorry). I'm torn on this. I understand that from Wiki's perspective, the notable part of "shemale" is its use in sex work. Since wikipedia is not a dictionary, it doesn't focus on the term itself, but rather the porn and sex work genre. That said, it does mention its use as a term more generally and it's generally a slur, even when used in the context of sex work. I don't think it incorrect to add the category, but at the same time, it would be minor compared to more defining categories. I'm leaning toward "include the cat" though. Or perhaps add a "for the slur, see this_wiktionary_definition" at the top. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, EvergreenFir. This isn't a WP:Category matter, not in the strictest sense at least. See the edits by the IP. It was a matter of the IP calling the term a slur throughout, no matter what the sources state, and changing other sourced wording. This article actually is about the term. It's a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article. And, as noted above, I don't mind us noting the derogatory aspect of the term. We should and already do that. What I mind is what the IP did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Shemale porn redirect discusion
There is a redirect discussion for Shemale porn. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 23#Shemale porn. You can add your opinion over there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shemale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726022351/http://www.glaad.org/reference/defamatory to http://www.glaad.org/reference/defamatory
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
- Not every article needs an image, and adding one to this article can be tricky, given the controversial nature of the topic, especially if the image were to look like a porn image. I see the options on commons. This image used to be in the Connotations section of the article, and I'd be okay with adding that image or a similar one. Per WP:GRATUITOUS, I don't think that a porn or very graphic image is the way to go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)