Talk:Trans man/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Comment

Shouldn't "lesbian transmen" be "hetero transmen" or "ex-lesbian transmen"? It's trans women who can be called lesbians, not the other way around. --Sonjaaa 05:46, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Nope. There are people who identify as lesbian transmen, that is (ex-)female-bodies persons who are now "male presenting" and who still identfy as lesbians (but not as women) and are accepted as such by at least a part of the lesbian community. I know that is irritating (it surely irritated me) but that is how some identify, and therefore, the entry is correct.

BTW, "hetero" is - like "homo" - not exactly without problems when refering to transpeople, and "ex-lesbian" also has a host of problems, one of them, as said, the "ex-"part, and the other the question to which extend a transmen who desires women is lesbian; the latter question having about as many answers as there are transmen who desire women. Some have always refuted the description "lesbian", a few even refused having any sexual relationship because they did not want that label, some had been activ in the lesbian community and thought they somehow "had to be lesbian" while never quite feeling they actually were, and some felt perfectly at home within the lesbian community, and did not wish to leave it when they changed their gender role and/or their body.

Once more, life turns out to be colorful, complicated and wonderful ;-) AlexR 10:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool! thanks for the explanations. I gueess I always felt confused about trans guys calling themlelves lesbians, because it undermines the validity of lesbian trans women. But as you say, in our crazy gender variant world, people can really identify as anything, and I think it's their right to be able to call themselves this.--Sonjaaa 05:09, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion on the spelling "transperson" versus "trans person" on Talk:Transwoman. Feel free to join in. Peace!--Sonjaaa 05:09, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'd rather call that another attempt to impose the usage of a small group on all others. Disgusting. -- AlexR 08:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sonja, you are absolutely right: there aren't any and cannot be "lesbian transmen". It's a nonsense. And this is yet another attempt of transphobic individual to take over this article. Thru the night 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IP edits 4th Nov. 04

I reverted many of those edits.

  • Transmen do not necessarily have surgery.
  • The self-descriptions are a quote, and should therefore retain their capital spelling.
  • "For some transmale-identified people" is not correct, otherwise there would be little need for all those self-descriptions.
  • The "please note" section is somewhat questionable, since Wikipedia is not an usage guide. I left it in anyway, but changed it a bit to apply to all, not just those who identify as "men".
  • Cut "like it is with anyone who is not transsexual". a) this article does not just deal with "transsexuals", and b), the variation is obviously different from that of cisgender people, so it is wrong, too.
  • Restored cut of "queer" or "lesbian" transmen.
  • Restored previous order on links; unless there is a very good reason to change it, alphabetically sorting them is a good idea. Sorted "famous transmen", too; although I wonder wheter it is needed, there is a List of transgendered people already. If it ultimately remains, it should be expanded.

And I might add, it is generally preferred when edits are not made with lots of savings in between, it clutters up the history. Use the preview button instead, please. -- AlexR 06:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's obvious that English isn't your first language.

And this

I'd rather call that another attempt to impose the usage of a small group on all others. Disgusting.

Is a bit hypocritical when you restored a little used and offensive designation ("lesbian transmen") to this entry.

The parts of this entry that you restored muddy the meaning of what a transman/transmale/transsexual man is and to be politically correct in embracing all gender identifications erroneously as transmale. As transmale, it it offensive that lesbians deign to usurp the designation of "trans" for their own purposes. User:TheTransman

I take it that this is meant to be a reply to my statements about IP edits 4th Nov. 04. First of all, answers to comments should usually not go under new headings, but should be formated just like this. Otherwise, the connection between the two entries can get lost. Second, it is a lot better if you sign your entries, like this: --~~~~. I signed your entry for you, but please do so yourself the next time, otherwiese, after a while nobody knows who wrote what. Third, making a heading that is quite likely to offend is not exaclty a polite thing to do, and people who argue with plain style or spelling errors are usually regared as having no other arguments. Not to mention that I cannot recall having read any Wikipedia policy that excludes non-native speakers from editing entries. In fact, I cannot recall either any particular criticism about my writing, so if you consider what I said to be so badly worded, then in the article, correct it, and in this discussion, at least don't put it into headings unless that is what you want to talk about.
As for your comments, those are obviously your personal views. And while you are entitled to hold every personal view you wish to, you cannot insist that this article conforms to them. There are transmen who do not identify as transsexual (me, for example), and there are people who call themselfes "lesbian transmen", whether you or I or whoever else likes that or not. I am also under the distictive impression that you don't even know what "lesbian transmen" usually are, namely female-to-male transgendered people who do indeed change gender, but do not want to leave the lesbian community they were part of for a long time entirely behind them. And I don't see what right you or I or anybody else has to prohibit them to do exactly that, and to choose exactly the self-description they want to. That is not "usurping" anything. The article writes about facts as they are, not as some homophobic 150% transsexuals would like them to be. Which is why I remove the NPOV notice, it is inappropriate. -- AlexR 17:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

add to definition

Perhaps an section on this issue should be added to the definition. This can be a very confusing topic even to those familiar with transexuality and transsexual persons (perhaps except to those who identify in this way). I expect that this proposed entry will not be perfect the first time; however it doesn’t appear to be very well articulated.

Gbm2b83 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging into TS

Who came up with that idiotic idea? The article clearly states that not just transsexual, but also transgender people from the FtM direction are called or call themselfes transmen. Therefore, obviously the idea of merging the article into transsexuality is at best false, but quite likely the not exactly rare discrimination of non-transsexual transgender people by "proper transsexals". Either that, or the person who demanded the merger just can't read. Not to mention that whoever did that obviously didn't think there was a need to start a discussion about this anywhere. -- AlexR 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Men's Ts Resources, Australia

I'm wondering why someone keeps reverting the page to say that this page is "for FtMs only". When I go to the web page in question, it says: "Men's Ts Resources in Australia (also known as FTM Australia) has been offering resources and health information for all men with transsexualism (identified 'female' at birth), their family members (partners, parents, siblings and others), healthcare providers and other professionals; government and policy makers since 2001." That doesn't sound to me like they mind non-FtMs accessing their web site. Catamorphism 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying "FtMs" only, but "transsexual men only". Which is exactly what the site says, and what you quote. Which means that this group does not want non-transsexual transmen (or their family and friends). Which is quite relevant information for those non-TS-TMs, who would hardly feel welcome on such a site. If any group were for black or white people only, or for christians or pagans only, or whatever, I don't think there would be a problem saying so, so why is there one saying this is a TS only one? They exclude all non-TS-TMs explicitly, so why not say so? -- AlexR 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But the sole purpose of including their site in the external links section here is so that people can go to their web site and get more information. Their web site is open to everybody. Inclusion of the link is not meant to suggest that people should join the group, just that the web site is available. I feel like I'm not able to make myself clear here. Catamorphism 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Errr ... well, I don't think anybody will understand "(transsexual men only)" as "only transsexual men can access the website" -- how should that work? Or, if they had indeed such a system there (which would be very difficult to put into place), then the site would not be linked. Hence I would guess that everybody (except you, obviously) understands that this means that the group which operates the website is for transsexual men only. And this is very relevant information, because it indicates that the website will contain only information on transsexual men, not non-TS transmen. So what is your problem? Links in the WP often come with comments which enable the reader to better judge whether that site will be worth visisting for their purpose. And since they say so themselfes, I really don't understand what your problem is. -- AlexR 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How about saying "for transexual men" without "only"? -- infinity0 14:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And what are non-transsexual transmen? Isn't that like saying non-avian birds? Or non-Caledonian Scots?
Nuttyskin 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a book that I added to External links

Quoting from [1]

Quote - - " Gorton, R. Nick, M.D. & others. Medical Therapy & Health Maintenance for Transgender Men: A Guide for Health Care Providers. Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Services. 2005. bibliog. ISBN 0-9773250-0-8. open access.

This full-text, open-access book is free under the GNU Free Documentation License and is available at www.nickgorton.org in open office, PDF, and Microsoft Office. Gorton (Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Svs.), Jamie Buth (medicine, Tulane Univ.), and Dean Spade (Sylvia Rivera Law Project) provide an essential text for “anyone wishing to learn about the medical treatment of transgender men—whether transman, provider, or perhaps even both.” While some of the book will be difficult for nonclinicians to understand, much is well within the grasp of most consumers. There is not a great deal of quality material readily available on this topic, so this is a welcome addition.

" - - Close Quote FemVoice 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Please note" line

I changed this to start "It should be noted", rather than "Please note" since the first one sounds more formal. I also removed the second sentence for reasons of style. Maerk 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Readability

This is a very difficult article to read. Not the subject matter, just the actual act of reading. I can appreciate the need for accurate ideology here, but it seems to be ALL ideology, and somewhat dismissive of the average reader who just wants some basic information.

I'd do something myself, but I don't know enough about the subject, and I'm pretty sure that whatever I did would offend someone's ideological sensisbilities one way or the other and get reverted. But I did want to put it out there that this reads more like a queer theory paper than an encyclopedia article, and I hope that future revisions will take the needs of curious and uninformed readers into account. Best, dablaze 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Leslie Feinberg

Should Feinberg really be listed as a transman? AFAIK, ze doesn't identify as one. Kolindigo 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe ze is genderqueer, and therefore is not FTM. I'm removing hir from the list of transmen. --MykellM 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Redlinked transmen moved here

The following are the transmen from "List of notable transmen" who are redlinked; meaning that there is not an article written about them. There is a great opportunity here to create articles on these transmen if you can assert their notability. Joie de Vivre 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

pregnancy

It'd be nice if there were a segment about transmen becoming pregnant, since I'm hoping there'll be consensus for a little note at the top of pregnancy indicating that people go here for that special case, as it's outside the scope of that article. Thanks. Kuronue | Talk 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

'Self-descriptions'

I find the section where it lists 'self-descriptions for transmale identified people' completely irrelevant and offensive. NO ftm refers to himself as a 'grrl'. This article is about female-to-MALE transsexuals and transgendered individuals. Additionally, drag kings and FTMS are NOT the same thing. A drag king is a self-identifying woman who dresses up in male clothing. Transmen LIVE as guys; they don't just dress up as them. Also, how is 'amazon' relevant AT ALL? 'Passing woman'? Whoever added that section is obviously not a FTM. I desperately want to remove this, but I know it will just be added back in. --House Boy 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly drag kings aren't the same as FTM transsexuals, aren't the same as passing women, aren't the same as Amazon-identified folk. The article addresses this fine, stating that these are "self-descriptions for some transmale-identified people" ("some" is an important word here") -- descriptions which those people identify themselves with, and are comfortable with. And it goes on to say that "Many of these designations would be considered offensive by transmen who identify with another self-description." What about this wording offends you? because it'd be helpful to know so that Wiki editors can work towards making it more neutral. However, the words themselves are not offensive, I would think, as they are self-chosen labels and are not implied to all mean exactly the same thing as "transsexual."
Saying "NO ftm" does this, or "obviously not a FTM", is a pretty blanket statement. Although it's problematic that a lot of these labels don't have sources, a number of works by and about transpeople -- especially younger, more gender-variant-identified or genderqueer people -- include use of similar words. Switchercat talkcont 00:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You pretty clearly have a bias towards including clearly non-male labels in an article about men. Ftm shouldn't redirect to transman. Those labels may or may not belong on a page about the transmasculine spectrum. Maybe we need a new article on that. But keeping it here is taking the focus away from trans men, the people *named* in this article. I would doubt that genderqueer people who aren't transsexual men would want to be named on an article on transmen. I am new and rather unfamiliar with wikipedia's rules, but this clearly indicates an individual with an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.38 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The random string of irrelevant identites lifted from the defunct American Boyz group

I think there is no way to defend including identities that seem to contradict the main thrust of what "trans man" is all about. I think someone with an agenda must really want "tomboy" and "amazon" and "bearded female" or whatever to appear on a page about a group of people who are male identified and almost completely live as men or intend to do so.

why does ftm redirect here? in my experience, transman and ftm have different connotations and usages. maybe that AmBoyz boilerplate identity section would be better served on a page describing the wild and wooly wide open ftm world and not here, where it tends to obfuscate the point that trans men are men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.38 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

AmBoyz quote removal/reverting + Article needs to comply with WP:V / WP:NOR + WP:CITE

Looking at the above discussion, I'm not about to delve into whether or not the trans* representation of Wikipedia ought to be divided further. However, I think it's impossible to keep the supposed AmBoyz quote either way, becuase at the moment it has no source. amboyz.org is defunct, it was never quoted as a reference with dates and such, the group was never notable enough to get a wiki article, archive.org can't retrieve a copy, and when you google for the less well-known labels ("Female Guy" "Tranz" "Boss Grrl" "Bearded Female", in this case), you get 1) This wiki article and 2) sites that have lifted info from here, as the top results. Combined, this seems like a clear violation of both WP:V and WP:NOR. If those labels are frequent enough to be mentioned in a Wiki article, they ought to be easily confirmed from a number of external and unrelated sources. The quote should be removed, and not put back unless verified.

Unfortunately, a lot of the article looks like this. We have a bunch of statements about this and that, a bunch of external links, and no references / footnotes section at all. Given that the content of the article is partly controversial (or, at the very least, talking about subjects that an average person might not be informed about), a liberal application of WP:CITE can only improve it.

I'll go through the article and add request for citations. Some of this stuff ought to be easily cited, if I have more time, I'll look at that too.

Also, I'm noticing that the article is currently undergoing heavy editing. Probably needed, although I'm not sure if it's good to just remove huge sections without comment, but either way, people, WP:V! The new versions aren't cited either! //Amphis 09:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Few words about quality of the article and politics around it

This article lacks a lot of important information, like broader information on status and presentation, including aspects like workplace, disclosure and coming out; sexual orientation section is poor. External links can be significantly extended too. On top of this, the article, which discusses very sensible subject, became a constant battleground and seems some people try to politicize it, instead of making it a good source of information. Usage of highly offensive terms, terms that nullify or don't respect male identity of transmen, ignorant or transphobic slurs (e.g. "bearded woman", "lesbian transman") is not only inappropriate, but is also harmful. So please avoid this unneeded and pointless war of words. Lets leave this space for pure information. Thru the night 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


External links

External links to chat boards, blogs, and bookselling sites are normally not accepted on Wikipedia. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that some people want blogs and chat boards and so forth to be included in this article. I realize that this information is useful to some people, such as transmen and their families. However, a link to purchase books at Amazon.com is not an encyclopedic link. It's a commercial link. Pretty much the only article in all of Wikipedia which should have an external link to Amazon.com is the article about the business itself. If you want to list the books, then please figure out how to list them without the links to Amazon.com.
Additionally, the personal webpage section is specifically prohibited under the external links policy. If you will look at item #12 under the "Links normally to be avoided" section, you'll see that it says, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" should not be included except under exceptional circumstances. There is no way to revise a link to a blog or a personal web page that will make it quit being a blog or a personal web page. These are "helpful to patients" kinds of links, not "encyclopedic" links. Wikipedia only includes encyclopedic links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed other articles sometimes have a "Further reading" section. Perhaps one of those could be created and the books could be listed there without needing to be a link. Neitherday (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to a "Further reading" section for books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all I have seen many articles (including the featured ones) that use links to Amazon. You can see Amazon as a commercial site, or you can see it as a source of information: it tells you when and where the book was published. But my main point was not even that particular list: If the rules are so important to you, then imply them to existing content. I definitely object the situation when you just DELETE the content that doesn't follow some rule. Advice to review it, review it, or put it in discussion area with explanation what needs to be done about it. DO NOT delete it. And for personal pages section: though I agree that some of the pages can be removed, as they are personal ads more then anything else, others are very good, for instance "Successful TransMen: Links and Photos" and "Why Don't you Tell Them I'm a Boy] Article on raising a gender non-conforming child by Florence Dillon. A mother's experience raising a transgender (FTM) son." are not. Again: it's so easy to delete some content. It's much more difficult to edit it and make it valuable. Thru The Night (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked transmen moved here

The following are the transmen from "List of notable transmen" who are redlinked; meaning that there is not an article written about them. There is a great opportunity here to create articles on these transmen if you can assert their notability. Joie de Vivre 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

more red linked names Thru the night (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Baldness

Hello, can transmans get bald?(for example by treatments like hormone replacement therapy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.107.82.139 (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2008‎

yes MykellM (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Title

The text (correctly) uses 'trans man' (with a space). I'd like to put a space in the title, too. In the absence of discussion, I'll do this in a day or too. (See also the 'transwoman' article (and the comment I left there), which needs much work work on this point.) Dchudz (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a recent change that I reverted. I don't think there is concensus for these changes but perhaps looking at what the majot transmen organization use would help here. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about what usage is most common in organizations for trans folk. I don't know how relevant this is here, but what matters to me personally is that if I try to find out what trans folk have to say about "transman" or "transwomen"(Google will turn up the same things for you as for me, so I won't link anything), I find arguments (which make sense to me) that the lack of a space is offensive. It seems like anyone who's thought about whether to put the space in or not wants the space. Dchudz (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It could be different for transmen and transwomen. In either case we should look to reliable sources to lead the way. I'll think more on it but I'm not keen on changing without good reason. -- Banjeboi 10:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
While personally, the lack of a space rubs me the wrong way, I agree that we have to go with what we can back up with reliable sources and not what is inoffensive. SparsityProblem (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
How about the last sentence of WP:CENSOR? BassoProfundo (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I am currently changing "transwoman" to "trans woman" throughout Wikipedia according to the discussion at Talk:Transwoman, and I am doing the same for "transman" where I find it on the same pages. Any objections to the "trans man" usage (rather than just objections to changing anything)? BassoProfundo (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, actually. Instead of just applying one preference rather than what we have project-wide, why not actually present some reliable sourcing to support which is the most encyclopedic to use. Your preference might be the right way to go but with no verifiable reasons there no reason the next person can't come along in two months and change everything back with the same preference reasoning. Please discuss first and see if an informed discussion leads to consensus. -- Banjeboi 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The changes have little to do with my personal preference, and much to do with the combined personal preferences of various trans people who have posted directly and linked to posts at Talk:Transwoman. As far as I am aware, no such objections to "trans man" exist. BassoProfundo (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
My hunch is we should focus on the Talk:Transwoman page then since that's where the changes are mainly focussed. If we find something useful there that applies to this page we can certainly use it. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There shouldn't be any reason why one term would not parallel the other, so we'll keep the discussion over there. BassoProfundo (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I don't agree the terms are or are not parallel, they might be but they also could have no bearing on each other. If we find compelling reasons to use transman IMHO that does not equate that transwoman is preferred. -- Banjeboi 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Assigned" gender?

I'm far from familiar with the subject, but is the term transman applied only to those who were born with ambiguous genitalia, and underwent surgery to make their genitalia appear more female? If not, then the lede contains some pretty POV terminology, such as "assigned to actual". One's "actual" gender is determined by one's chromosomes, and the myriad combinations thereof. The terminology seems to suggest then that a transman is someone who was born male, had female genitalia surgically created, and feels male. This seems to be a rather small subset of the population. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to that question is a No. Most trans men were born with a medically "normal" vulva and vagina, normal uterus and ovaries, etc. Most of them were therefore judged, as newborns, to have a "female" body. This is the assignment of sex: associating a particular body configuration with a particular label like "female." (As the related article notes, that assignment is a social judgment as much as a biological one.) Because of their bodies, they were reared/raised as girls/women, but later grew to realize that they identified with the male gender rather than the female. Is that more or less comprehensible? I'm choosing my words very carefully here -- it's fallacious to talk about "a female body" or "male genitalia" per se, because at least to some extent, bodies' fe/maleness is socioculturally as well as biologically determined. —Switchercat talkcont 01:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I follow to an extent. Are we talking about people who have some chromosomal combination other than strict XX or XY? Gender assignment is a medical term. I won't beat around the bush here: By saying that transmen transition from an "assigned to actual" gender, it appears the lede is trying to legitimize something that needs no legitimization, only description. The article should not be about whether or not it is "ok" to be trans, but rather what the phenomonon is. That's what I mean when I say it's POV. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've editted the article to remove some of these problematic words, as well as for some general tidy-up. Let me know what you think. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked the lede back generally, we can't infer all transmen were born with female genitalia. If someone else states that we can cite what they state but frankly that is a problematic general statement although I agree there may be a better way to express this. With many intersex people they are born with ambiguous genitalia and are indeed assigned one sex or the others. This is not always known to the child until they are much older. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and there are many high-profile cases that demonstrate the point you're making. My concern, however, is the OR/POV assertion that a gender is "assigned" to someone with definite genitalia. I wish to avoid the perception that the article justifies the condition, rather than merely describing it. I'll review your edits and reply further. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Aside from my previous concerns, the only issues I can see are style-related. Can you think of a way to address my concern without excluding those born with indefinite genitalia? How about "born with female or indefinite genitalia"? I shy away from justifying it, as we're talking about a psychobiological condition, with no moral implications.Throwaway85 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps have a look at Intersexuality and see if something there may help as well. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I simply can't understand why the idea that gender is assigned is an "OR/POV" assertion. When an infant is born, a person makes a judgment as to whether they believe that infant's sex is female or male. To set up a dichotomy between "definite" and "indefinite" genitalia, and claim that there is objective truth, independent of an observer, about the gender of infants in the "definite" category, is what's "POV". I can't see how it's controversial to make the neutral statement that a particular individual (or class thereof) were assigned a particular gender at birth. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Beliefs such as yours, that gender is assigned rather than evident, are far from mainstream. You may view them as respectful, accurate, or what have you, but they are still a minority view. I'm sorry if you find it "POV" to state that people are born with definite or indefinite genitalia, and born with a definite chromosomal gender "XX or XY", or indefinite "XXY, XYX, XYY, etc". My goal is not to offend, but rather to reflect reality. Similarly, to adopt a minority view while dismissing the majority as "POV" is problematic and unencylopedic. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're using the same definition of "POV" here. Whether a view is minority or majority is irrelevant to whether it's POV. Can you explain, again, what is POV about the assertion that when an infant is born, an observer typically examines the infant and determines the infant's apparent sex based on its visual appearance? SparsityProblem (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing at all POV about that assertion. What is POV, however, is the claim that a person with female genitalia and XX chromosomes will feel the need to transition from their "assigned" gender of female to their "actual" gender of male. This implies that gender has no biological basis, and is instead determined by how someone feels. This is highly problematic. I'm a white man. If I claimed to be a black woman, I would have a lot of arguing ahead of me in order to convince someone that I am, in fact, a black woman. Things like gender and race are biologically determined. The only way one can be "assigned" a particular genotype is if one believes in a god. Needless to say, that's a belief that cannot form the basis of an encyclopedic argument. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Going forward

Above is the current wording, I've bolded the phrase that sounds liek it could be improved. Without digressing further into what is OR and POV perhaps we could work to add something NPOV like a person who was assigned or assumed to be female gender at birth might work? Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 14:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "appeared to be female"? I'm also okay with simply "assumed to be female", without the problematic assigned clause. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well assigned remains accurate, that's part of the point, the infant and likely the parents didn't pick a gender, a doctor did. Let's see if anyone else has input and we can ask for insight from some of the relevant wikiprojects. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Technically, the gender was picked when the sperm, carrying either an x or y chromosome, fertilized the egg, carrying an x. This is kind of beyond debate. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you're aware we're discussing cases of ambiguous genitalia rather than just a male-female gender-binary concept. We both seek language that is neutral yet helps our readers understand the subject, I still believe this is possible. 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It isn't beyond debate at all. I imagine most modern gender studies theorists, sociologists, and even doctors would disagree with you there. You're equating the assignment of gender (a social label) with the development of sex (a bodily state). —Switchercat talkcont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I had actually been told the opposite, which is why I raised the objection. In cases of sexual ambiguity, it has historically been the case that someone is assigned, usually surgically, a particular gender, and there is a very real medical phenomenon there. The case I am talking about, however, is where a person with XX chromosomes and unambiguous female genitalia feels they were "assigned" the female gender in error. I'm quite aware that gender is not a binary phenomenon, despite our language concerning it. There's a big difference in my mind, however, between saying someone with ambiguous genitalia and possibly non-XX chromosomes is assigned the female gender, and saying someone who is biologically female is "assigned" said gender. It muddies the language surrounding the issue, and lumps together two disparate groups into one. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about where your offense lies here, and I think it might originate from a misunderstanding of the connotations of the term "assigned." "Assigned the female gender" is, on my reading, no more or less POV than saying "was assumed to be of the female gender"; the two phrases are analogous in meaning, and I'm not really seeing why you (Throwaway85) have objections to the first but not the second. When the word "assigned" is used in a sex/gender context, there is no implication that the assignment was wrong (or that it was right, either). Everybody's assigned a gender, or assumed to be a member of a gender, if you like. Margaret Thatcher was assigned into the female gender at birth, and she agreed with that assignation. Billy Tipton was assigned into the female gender at birth, and later on in life, he rejected that assignation. I don't see how these statements would be any different if I changed "assigned" to "assumed"/"assignation" to "assumption" ... or why the former would offend you and appear POV, but you'd be fine with the latter. —Switchercat talkcont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I take no offense to anything. I object, however, to the patently false assertion that a doctor determines one's gender. I realise that people may feel that their anatomy does not reflect their identity, but that doesn't mean they were "assigned" a gender, it simply means they don't identify with the gender they physically resemble. Thus I have no problem saying someone is assumed to be of a particular gender, but have a big problem saying they were "assigned" the wrong gender. I hope that helps clarify my position. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Change

I changed the lede to read "a person who was identified as female at birth". It is my hope that this is acceptable to everyone. Let me know what you think. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Logic Gap

The sentences, "The term "trans man" is used as a short form for either identity (transsexual man and transgender man).[4] Trans men may identify as transsexual, as transgender, neither, or both," create an illogical conclusion. A term which which is narrowly "used as a short form" for "either," of two other terms cannot then be defined as meaning one of those other terms, the other, and at the same time, "neither, or both." The addition of "neither, or both," disqualifies the term from definition. If it can mean, "neither," it can mean anything other than the two terms it is able to represent.

What is at question is, what is the common usage of the term? Is the term generally restricted to transsexual and transgender males? If so, it cannot mean, "neither," of these terms. If there are other common usages of the term, then a disambiguation is required with explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.64.244 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point. In my opinion, "trans" has an inclusive meaning that can encompass people who identify as gender-variant but who find that neither "transsexual" nor "transgender" applies to them, but I do not have sources right now. It would be good if someone added them. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the need for an "expert" on the Trans man page

For the purposes of this article, what denotes an expert?--Transpuppy (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

swap with redirect

  • Transman is the more common usage, not trans man. Can we get the redirect swapped? Nicoleta (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    There's no Wikipedia guideline as far as I know that says the more common usage has to be the one that is the target of the redirect. Moreover, I'm not sure what evidence you have that "transman" is the more common usage (and no, google hits don't count).
    I have to admit some bias, since as a trans man, I find "transman" a dehumanizing and othering term (we don't write "blackman", "Jewishman", or "disabledman", after all). But leaving that aside, I see no reason to fix something that isn't broken SparsityProblem (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, there's a very very long discussion on the trans woman talkpage about it. Nicoleta (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Having skimmed the discussion, I think it's more evidence for "why fix what ain't broken?" I agree with what User:BassoProfundo said there: "It's not at all accurate to say that there are 'equally compelling reasons' for either usage. On one hand, we have a word that a great number of trans people see as a qualification placed on their gender identity. On the other hand, we have a word that is, as far as I am aware, entirely inoffensive — literally the only objection raised here has been a supposed lack of compelling reason to make the change." (For clarity, BassoProfundo was saying that "trans woman" was entirely inoffensive, and "transwoman" was a word that many people see as a qualification placed on their gender identity.) Again, in terms of Wikipedia policies, what compelling reason is there to make the change you're suggesting? SparsityProblem (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If we reference the GLAAD Media Reference Guide dated 2010 (the most recent publication) we find that the recommendation is to use the terms "transgender man" and "transgender woman" in all instances where the individuals preferred terminology is not known. Lacking some other source and recognizing the lack of consensus in the community itself, I would suggest the GLAAD reference have authority here. --Transpuppy (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

This article needs info on why these people get to be such. Why do they identify themselves as men trapped in women's bodies?? This article talks about people of this kind, but it does not talk about why people of this kind exist. Georgia guy (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not very many trans men identify as "men trapped in women's bodies." That's a transphobic trope used by cis people to demean trans people.
Moreover, the page on Cissexual doesn't discuss how some people come to identify as having a sex and gender that matches the sex and gender they were arbitrarily assigned at birth. I would reckon that in both cases, the missing information is missing due to WP:NOR. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a consensus in the scientific community. The debate is a hot-button issue right now in psychiatry as the DSM-V is being written. Despite some studies suggesting that the brains of many transpeople have sexually dimorphic characteristics opposite their physical sex (and congruent with their gender identity), the research isn't yet broad enough to draw a formal conclusion.--Transpuppy (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous title

I clicked "Female-to-Male" link, and was redirected here? Who decided this was the best title? Is this what the clinical name is? Trans man? Sounds like a superhero. Or at least, a weird offspring of a transformer and a superhero. Or a superhero transformer. "Relax, citizen, for I am Trans Man, I shall save you!" --Buddy13 (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

all your questions may be answered by simply reading the article instead of reacting to the title. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The word "trans man" is simply a combination of "trans" (short for transsexual or transgender) and "man". See how that works? Solar-Wind (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm completely retarded and I don't know where the term came from, duh. But the slang term isn't the proper term. If I type in "butt crabs" (which I just made up and may or may not be real) I expect to be taken to the clinical name, not some silly colloquial name. --Buddy13 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If you have a verifiable source that shows what the "proper term" is (rather than your own opinion, which does not constitute a reliable source), then feel free to improve the article. Otherwise, why not complain about Functor instead? That's a pretty silly-sounding word, after all, it sounds like something completely different than a mathematical object. And let's not even get started on homomorphism. SparsityProblem (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If we reference the GLAAD Media Reference Guide dated 2010 (the most recent publication) we find that the recommendation is to use the terms "transgender man" and "transgender woman" in all instances where the individuals preferred terminology is not known. Lacking some other source and recognizing the lack of consensus in the community itself, I would suggest the GLAAD reference is a verifiable source that outlines what is thought to be the current proper terminology. Given that this guide is provided to journalists and media outlets as "the final say", I see no reason it shouldn't also guide Wikipedia's usage. --Transpuppy (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There are many transsexuals (or people of transsexual experience) who do not identify as transgender, or would even be offended by being referred to as transgender. If the article titles are changed to "Transgender man" and "Transgender woman", many people who identify as TS-not-TG would not be included and in effect be erased. Solar-Wind (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree -- not everybody who has a transsexual body is transgender. "Trans" is the best term to use since it encompasses both transgender and transsexual people; not all transgender people are transsexual (have transsexual bodies), and not all people with transsexual bodies are transgender. If the article claimed otherwise, that would be POV. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Trans can certainly honor both perspectives. I was merely seeking to provide a reliable source for one possible terminology. --Transpuppy (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucas Silveira

Lucas Silveira is not a trans man. He is a borned man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.197.15 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hefemale

The title Hefemale which currently redirects to this article has been nominated at RfD. The nomination originally received no comments and so has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10#Hefemale where your contribution is invited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Female-to-male (FTM or F2M) terminology

With this and this edit, ZoShax (talk · contribs) made changes to the article, claiming that use of "female-to-male (FTM or F2M)" is transphobic. I've seen similar happen at the Trans woman article, and I briefly commented on it. While some transgender people dislike these terms, just like some transgender people dislike the term genderqueer, these terms are not transphobic; not generally anyway. They are terms used by both the transgender community and medical community. This is partly why I reverted ZoShax, stating, "Revert unencylopedic, POV-pushing [...]. There is nothing transphobic about using the 'female-to-male' terminology cited in the sources. But moved it to [the] Terminology [...] section. " And then made this edit, stating, "Combined paragraphs. If you don't like the 'female-to-male (FTM or F2M)' wording, take it up with the sources." Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trans man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality

Is there a reason why the fact that total heterosexuality is very rare in trans men as opposed to being fairly common in trans women is left out? It's a pretty important part of this, especially when issues like autogynephilia come up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The IP is talking about this and this text he (or she) added, and I moved without looking at it as closely as I should have. It was not worded correctly since trans men identify as men, and various WP:Reliable sources state that most or the vast majority of trans men are heterosexual (that their sexual orientation is sexual attraction to women). The only way that someone could consider "heterosexuality [a]s very rare in trans men" is if they view trans men as lesbians; as seen with this edit, a different IP rightfully took issue with that type of wording. And with this edit, culminating with this edit, I tweaked the matter and added more material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Other change here; that section and other parts of the article will, of course, continue to develop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trans man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Rape with alleged intention of changing sexuality or sexual expression

To what degree should the following subjects be mentioned? Trans men are victims of sex crimes, and there are cases where rape has occurred, allegedly with the intention of changing the sexual expressions and/or the sexuality of trans men. Just because the issue might be under control in well-governed societies like Germany, it doesn't mean that the issue is a significant problem in other societies. 46.15.231.40 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The first version you added, which I reverted (followup note here), was too much a WP:Undue weight issue. This version you added, and which I tweaked, is better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

New section: terminology

I think most of the argument about what should and what should not be part of the transman identity, comes from the fact that there are two completely different identities (tanssexual man and transgender man) referred to as transman. Thus I tried to put a section that clarifies the differences between the two. Critics is welcome. Thru the night 18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A clarification that includes the term "transmasculine" as an umbrella term for AFAB individuals who may not identify either as trans or as trans men may be in order. I have added a redirect page so that "transmasculine" ends up on this page, but will work on a revision within this page as well. Dharmabum (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Dharmabum, there are a number of reasons you should not have created the Transmasculine article. Do see WP:No page, WP:No split and WP:Spinout. See WP:NEO too. Looking on Google Books, I really don't see that this topic can yet sustain a Wikipedia article. And WP:Stub articles are not ideal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for the comments. I do appreciate WP:No split. My concern was this: I'm editing some articles which previously have had no LGBTQ content (such as breastfeeding) where this term seems to be the most accurate. Linking to Trans man doesn't seem to be the way. Maybe you can suggest a better way to accomplish that aim? I don't claim the term can sustain an article. However, I am working on the citations at the transmasculine stub, which currently include a peer-reviewed journal and Time. There are more, but they seem redundant.[1] Dharmabum (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Dharmabum, thanks. I'll see how the Transmasculine article develops. It might be best to keep it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Another point: I do find the opening section and Terminology sections here overlap, and could be confusing to a first-time reader. I wonder if they can be cleared up? The overall impression is of wholly male-identified experience, which is fine, but reinforces the idea that transmasculine needs its own page. Dharmabum (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
By "opening section," do you mean the lead? Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article (mainly its most important points). The lead of this article needs a little more expansion. In what way do you find the lead conflicting with the Terminology section? We shouldn't use the lead to go into much detail about the terminological matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I find the lead of Trans woman has a more concise summary, and the way it goes on to provide an "overview" and "terminology" is more legible. I'd suggest following that format for consistency and clarity. Trans woman "overview" uses paragraphs very nicely, but we could also rework the material here as per WP:Embed#Appropriate use of lists. Dharmabum (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
When I compare the current lead of the Trans man article to the current lead of the Trans woman article, I view the Trans man article as having the better lead because it more thoroughly summarizes the article. That's what our leads are supposed to do. Keep in mind that many or most people don't even read past the lead, which is the main reason that our leads should cover what is in the rest of the article. The Trans man article at first uses a setup similar to that of Trans woman article, and then it was developed past that.
As for embedded lists, prose form is usually preferred to list form; this is per WP:Prose. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I might leaf through the revisions to see how this article has developed, but I do think the list of sexual orientation variables doesn't quite summarize the corresponding section. The first citation isn't viewable except if you can login to their site -- is that a problem, do you think? I like that Trans woman references the "Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People (version 7)" but that link, too, doesn't lead you to the actual PDF cited (but that's a point for the talk page over there).Dharmabum (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The "Trans men may identify as homosexual, gay, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, asexual, demisexual, etc., and some trans men consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them." sentence is problematic because the reference that it is sourced to doesn't support it. Same goes for this link within the reference. I've been meaning to either change that material and the corresponding material lower in the article or add a reference (or two) that supports it. And, yes, the reference for the "Many trans men choose to undergo surgical or hormonal transition" sentence is concerning because of its WP:SOURCEACCESS issue. It can easily be replaced by a reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Duke Journals http://tsq.dukejournals.org/search?fulltext=transmasculine&submit=yes&x=0&y=0. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trans man. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Confusion reigns

Not a forum at best, pseudoscientific trolling at worst. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Clearly this is a complex subject, and I do not feel qualified to edit here, so I throw this out to others who may have a better handle on things: I find this article far more confusing than informative, and that is decidedly NOT what I would expect from an encyclopedia which, as I understand it, is Wikipedia's intended model.

For example, the very first sentence:

"A trans man (sometimes trans-man or transman) is a man who was assigned female at birth."

OK.

  • A "man" is generally defined as "an adult male human".
  • "Male" is generally defined as an individual that produces sperm.
  • Medically/biologically speaking, for humans that would mean a person who has a) one X and one Y chromosome; and b) typical male genetaila: testicles and a penis.

Parsing that back in to the original sentence, then, I get:

"A trans man is an adult with an XY chromosome pair, testicles, and a penis, who someone mistakenly assigned to the female gender when recording the event of their birth."

Really? So "trans man" is nothing but an elaborate neologism for a specific -- and, one can only imagine, exceedingly rare -- clerical error?

One must ask, "why"? The remainder of the article makes this anything but clear. Indeed, it is filled with a plethora of still other neologisms ("transmasculine"; "demisexual"; "big-ender"; "genderqueer", etc.), the meaning of which -- or the necessity for -- is neither well documented nor well explained.

Your definition of man is unscientific and extremely simplistic. This talk page isn't the place to share your flawed definition, and repeating it multiple times doesn't make it any less flawed. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017‎

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trans_man/Archive_1&oldid=1137264394"