From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

retroactively transgender?[edit]

There seems to be a push from activists for transgender individuals to be considered as have been transgender even before they came out as TG. This raises questions for us here on WP, for example, with female to male transgender person Cidny Bullens. As "Cindy" they for example, sung It's Raining on Prom Night for the movie Grease. Now that song's lyrics are clearly written from the perspective of a CISGENDER FEMALE prom dance attendee and was sung by Bullens when they identified as a young woman, so writing that a man was singing that song is pretty damn awkward. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue of gender identity is not "a push from activists," it has been a matter of ongoing discussion among Wikipedia editors for the last 15 years: i refer you to MOS:GENDERID. It might also be helpful to look at articles for people who were notable both before and after transition, such as with Alexander James Adams; the talk page and an archive on the page document the discussion among editors on how to reflect his performance career under a different name and gender. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


I've had a go at rephrasing the definition of transgender in the first sentence of the lead section to that it is both rigorous and as neutral as possible:

Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that contradicts what would be presumed from the sex assigned at birth. Lmatt (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Second attempt:

Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that differs from the gender presumed from a person's sex assignment at birth.

Lmatt (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I see you reverted the first version I listed, could you share your thoughts on the second version? Lmatt (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The second one is better than the first, but you should get more opinions before just replacing the lead sentence. Kaldari (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken I think this second version makes more sense.

Transgender is a human gender identity or gender expression that contradicts the gender presumed from the sex assigned to a person at birth.

Lmatt (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The removal of "people" is not good. The use of "contradicts" is not neutral, no one is "assigned" a sex at birth. This is a mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken
  • The word "people" after "transgender" needs to go because the primary topic is transgender gender identity and not "transgender people".
  • The word "contradicts" is as neutral as I could think of while still expressing some kind of opposition to a transgender person's assigned gender.
  • Each person with a birth certificate is given a sex at birth, perhaps the word "assigned" could be changed with something like "given". Lmatt (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Lmatt, while any editor is welcome to take a stab at any part of any article, jumping in as a fairly new editor straight to the first sentence of the lead of an article about a controversial topic that has eight archived Talk pages, is a difficult thing to tackle, to say the least. The lead sentence of a controversial topic is about the very last place I'd suggest to an editor still learning the ropes. I've left a longer message about this at your Talk page. As far as continuing along this path, if that's what you choose to do, please keep in mind the policies which define the purpose of the WP:LEAD, the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, and the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, and the development sequence explained at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
More specifically: It's about gender identity, yes, but cars don't have gender identity, people do. "Contradicts" is problematic, because it's binary. And I agree with you, btw, that "assigned at birth" is the correct term. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I changed the word "differs" because I thought that implied a gender binary while the word "contradicts" not necessarily so. Someone may hold a gender identity that differs from the one culturally associated with their assigned sex, yet not consider themselves to hold a transgender identity. In any case I think "is inconsistent with" is better and more neutral wording. Lmatt (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
That's funny, I see it exactly the other way round: where differs allows any number of possible alternatives (A differs from B, C, and D; not just B). Contradiction is binary; contradicts means, NOT (as in, "you say A, and I say, not-A"). Inconsistent with just seems like a longer, and more wishy-washy way of saying differs. Inconsistent with also has some in this case unfortunate associations with euphemistic expressions like inconsistent with the truth, and we don't want to have even a subliminal association with "birth certificate" and "truth"; that stabs at the core of what this is about. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Reverted. The change is not an improvement and is unnecessarily wordy. For example, why exactly is "human" needed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My last go at this:

Transgender is a gender identity or gender expression of a person that is incongruent with the gender culturally associated with their assigned sex. Lmatt (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Lmatt, the lead before you started changing it was fine; I do not see any of your changes as an improvement. As asked by others, please gain consensus on the talk page before making further changes like this. Thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I have corrected the glaring categorical error in the definition, comparing the attributes of gender identity and assigned sex and claiming they "differ" for transgender people, when logically the attributes can never differ nor are ever the same, because they are different categories. Sure, gender identity and assigned sex have a strong cultural association, so I have made this clear in the definition, similar to the lead for the Transexual article. Lmatt (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: How to word the WP:LEAD[edit]

This interesting RfC asks the community to decide on a pithy, in-a-nutshell definition of the word "transgender" with which to open the article on that topic. This is a high-visibility subject, and this discussion may be viewed by non-Wikipedians, so I should explain that Wikipedian decisions are made not on the basis of votes, but on the basis of a rough consensus. The principles are written up (in the slightly different context of deletion discussions) at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. When the discussion has run its alloted time, a volunteer "closer" -- in this case, me -- is asked to read it, decide what the rough consensus is, and then implement it. A sacred cow of Wikipedia is that the closer of a discussion must be uninvolved in it and cannot have been appointed by any of the discussion participants. If you're a non-Wikipedian, then you may wonder why I, a cisgendered person, am closing a discussion so close to the transgender community. This principle of uninvolvement is the reason. As closer, I am not deciding what to do; my role is to determine what the community has decided below.

I find that the rough consensus in this case favours option 6 and I will implement this wording with my next edit.

I do hope this close helps. If anyone would like to discuss, or raise an objection to, this close, then please bring this to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Lmatt has proposed many different ways in the past view days to write the lead section that merits formal RfC style discussion. As this is a sensitive topic, it is best to get consensus on how to write the lead sentence. The original wording reads Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.

Please list your preferred option(s) below or feel free to propose a new option. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 6 proposed by Kolya Butternut 00:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: MattMauler placed a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies on 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC). --MarioGom (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Option 5 is my preferred, as it is most comprehensive (which is why I proposed it), however I also find Option 0 tacitly acceptable. It would be better, in my opinion, to include the cultural association bits that Lmatt proposed, which is why this option is a fusion of Option 0 and Option 4. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also okay with Option 6 as well, as it is just Option 0 with slight rewording. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As Option 6 seems to be getting support, I would like to say that in the event a choice between 0 and 6 is made, I prefer 6 for reasons other editors have explained below. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Either option 0 or option 5 per MOS:AVOIDBOLD "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." To me, the wordings that make transgender into a noun in order to use the formulaic "[subject of article] is..." opening come off as distorted in exactly this way. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Option 6 (added after I commented) also ok on the same grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would oppose any option that uses "presumed." I prefer Option 4, if possible with the "Transgender people..." wording rather than the "Transgender is..." wording. Option 5 is a little odd because of the "assigned gender or sex" thing; maybe "assigned gender based on birth sex" would convey this idea more clearly? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 ; as it is most comprehensive and competently worded.Option 0 next best. None of the others is well written or particularly informative in comaprison JonRichfield (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm open to changes, but my default position for now is Option 0, unless there's a persuasive reason to change. So I want to see what the arguments in favor of change are, in the Discussion section. Also, David Eppstein makes a good point above regarding MOS, which I agree with. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Confirming as Option 0, closely followed in second place by Option 6. Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6. This is the same as Option 0 except "assigned sex" is changed to "sex assigned at birth". Transgender people who have undergone sex reassignment have a sex that is aligned with their gender, so it is important to add "at birth". "Differs" seems appropriate because cismen for instance have a male sex assigned at birth and a male gender; their sex and gender do not differ. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Stick with Option 0. No need for the rest. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, the "that is not culturally associated with their assigned gender or sex" option doesn't consider the third gender topic. Use of "incongruent with the gender culturally associated with their assigned sex" somehow makes more sense to me because it seems to be speaking of a particular culture or cultures rather than all cultures. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 0. Concise, accurate, and sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 0. Can see no reason to change and none of the other options are an improvement. --John B123 (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6 - The addition of "at birth" removes any ambiguity of those who's gender has been reassigned. It is also consistent with the wording of the lead of Trans woman and Trans man. --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
John B123, "assigned sex" refers to "sex assigned at birth." That's what that article is about. It's not about a person transitioning and therefore being "reassigned." I see that Funcrunch has echoed this below. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
On my first reading of the options, my thoughts were that "at birth" was unnecessary. However, after reading Kolya Butternut's comments, a transgender person may well now be legally assigned the same sex as their gender, so the addition of "at birth" avoids any ambiguity, especially to a reader who knows little of the subject and may not take "assigned" to mean "assigned at birth". As the first sentence defines the term transgender it should accurate without having to go to linked articles for clarification. As far as I'm aware, there has not been any change in terminology or usage since the trans women lengthy discussion, so the need to include "at birth" hasn't changed. We have all become very familiar with the terminology during these discussion, and to us "assigned" means "assigned at birth". To think everybody will know that is a dangerous assumption. --John B123 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
John B123, thanks for explaining your rationale. I'm not strongly opposed to "sex assigned at birth" since some reliable sources do use that terminology, but I still don't see it as needed. "Legally assigned the same sex as their gender" is not what is meant by "sex assignment" or "assigned sex." But I do understand your point on clarity, especially for those unfamiliar with the terminology/literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 per gwen's exquisite wording. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6 or Option 0 (in that order if you need a tiebreaker). I'd also be okay with option 5, but I think it's worded somewhat awkwardly, and that any of the ones that start "transgender is" are worded unacceptably awkwardly. Loki (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 0 or Option 6, in order. --Equivamp - talk 02:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 0. As a runner up, option 6. The others are too long, confusing, and unnecessary. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6 as first choice; option 0 as second choice; option 5 as third choice. David Eppstein is completely correct that making "transgender" into a noun is not the best solution (and if we did it, we might need to add quotes or italics). Option 6 is more informative/accurate than option 0, and I'm not a fan of option 5's "and/or". (Note that the word "or" already means "and/or"... sort of. The word "or" in English can refer to either logical disjunction or exclusive or, but it seems clear from context that each option's lead sentence is using it in the former sense.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Lean towards Option 0. Oppose 1-4. "Transgender is" is poor wording. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Echoing Bilorv in putting Option 6 as priority, then option 0. The current wording makes good use of normal English, but option 6 clarifies the assigned at birth language, which is relevant and necessary. On top of the fact that the earlier options use (particularly 1-4) "transgender" as a noun, I find that they're worded uncomfortably, unnaturally, and not in a way that's particularly encyclopedic.
  • They're all broken except Option 0. Options 1-6 are "I'm a gender studies major in college" verbiage. They're all slight variations on something not really parsable by an everyday person (i.e., it's not encyclopedic). In particular, the "a[n] ... expression" construction will, to virtually everyone, suggest "a turn of phrase", but this article isn't about coinages, sayings, collocations, quotes, emotional or artistic statements, or anything else that "an expression" means in normal English. Further, 1-6 are pushing a subjective interpretation that not all readers and editors would agree with. (That's obvious, really since options 1-6 are making points at odds with each other; if they were neutral and factual, they couldn't be so contradictory and inspire so much uncertainty and debate.)

    Option 0 is concise, accurate, broadly understandable, and clean of politicized and jargonistic language contortion.
     — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think that either Option 0 or Option 2 are the best choices. Entity137 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6 as first choice, and Option 0 as close second. I dislike the choices that use "presumed", as awkward, and I think the lengthier options are needlessly verbose. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6, is at least an improvement from the current wording, and it is unlikely a consensus will be reached for a change to for any other option. Lmatt (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 0 is fine. The use of presumed/incongruent/culturally associated is unnecessary verbiage for a simple lead in a simple encyclopaedia. Option 6 is fine I suppose so that can be second choice, but I would rather the status quo. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6 although I do like the Option 5 as well. However, since Option 5 does not mention the issue of differing from assignment at birth, it isn't clear enough. Ideally, I'd like to see a merger of Options 5 & 6 but that isn't what is being asked of me, so I am going for Option 6 at this time.LiPollis (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6, but I would be okay with Option 5 if we removed the "and/or (WP:ANDOR). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6. It's technically the same as 0 because, at least according to Wikipedia, "sex assignment" means sex assignment at birth, but the explicit wording is less likely to mislead. I strongly oppose 1-5 because they say transgender is a noun - a gender identity in particular, whereas I believe it is an adjective that describes a person. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 0. All of the other options seem like they're micromanaging their words like they're afraid of being offensive for some reason. Keep it simple, no need to muck up concise definition with unnecessary verbal constraints. In addition, can someone explain to me why "sex assigned at birth" has to be the verbiage used? Why not just sex? I feel the use of the former implies a type of plasticity inherent in everyone and thus entirely separate from those who identify as transgender.
  • Option 0 is the most concise and easy to understand, although perhaps a bit less exact in its wording. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6. The emphasis on "assigned at birth" is useful up front in an explanatory article. That said, Option 0 is fine with the wikilink right there. The rest are honestly quite hard to read. Vashti (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6. This avoids the awkward "is a human" phrasing, the complicated "incongruent" term, and the superfluous "culturally associated" expression (gender expression always occurs in a cultural context). It uses relatively clear language that is neutral and reflects the important distinction between "assigned sex" and "sex assigned at birth". (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6. It's the most simple and concise version, in my opinion, that is easily readable/usable in a sentence. With as sensitive a subject as this I feel less words are probably more likely to not cause issues. -Yeetcetera @me bro 10:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 6 sounds the most positive way to refer to Transgender individuals, as I think words like "contradict" sound negative. EnviousDemon (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion[edit]

  • Comment - I think it's important to go with one of the options that includes culturally associated or some indication of gender identities and roles being variable by culture. I'm going to voice a minority view here, however, and that is in how the "assigned at birth" terminology has been brought in from the Intersex community, and wholesale applied to all trans definitions.
Gender (as in gender roles) is assigned, based on visually-perceived birth sex. In the Sex assignment article, in the first definition in the Terminology section, we have: "Sex assignment is the determination of an infant's sex at birth." The need to assign rather than determine the sex only happens when the sex is ambiguous. I know that "assigned at birth" has become the commonly-accepted wording for everyone, despite this. I doubt it will get much support, but I think it would be more accurate to go with something more like: "Transgender individuals have a gender identity and/or gender expression that is not culturally associated with their sex determined at birth." Or even "sex presumed at birth", as that could include intersex individuals whose conditions are not visible, but only discovered at puberty. - CorbieV 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieV: We don't need to use the circumlocution involving culturally associated with gender; there is already a perfectly good term that encapsulates the meaning of the entire phrase, namely, gender role. Gender role is the set of cultural assumptions associated with gender, and concision is better. Plus, it can be wikilinked. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, look at that. Good link. - CorbieV 20:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Good stepping-stone @Mathglot: but we also need to be careful with that. Just because one acts outside of one's gender roles (of which expression is included) doesn't make one transgender. Classic examples of these are butch lesbians and femme gay males. I think what we really need to focus on gender identity. Thinking on it, gender inherently regards culture. In this light, how does this wording sound? Transgender individuals have a gender identity different from the sex or gender they were assigned. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwenhope: Of course, and I made no such claim. I'm only pointing out that if one wants to talk about concepts for which terms already exist, then we should use those terms. Just like we use "gender identity" and link it, rather than replacing those two words with a long explanation of it at the top of this article.
In addition, regardless what words are used, and how this Rfc shakes out, we should always keep WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in mind; that is to say, we can't just go and alter the lead sentence any which way we please as editors; it needs to reflect and faithfully summarize or represent content in the body that already has references to reliable sources. And if there are multiple reliable definitions that are different, then the body must cover that per WP:DUE, and the lead can then summarize that. What we should not be doing here, is coming up with some kind of wording that is unique and comes from somewhere else; this Rfc is not some kind of beauty contest or "favorite definition" survey. I'll comment separately on your wording, but I think it's important to make this comment first. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: I hear what you're saying, but as Mathglot said, the lead needs to reflect what's in the sources. Funcrunch (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I acknowledge that butch lesbians and so on are not trans simply by virtue of wearing male clothing etc., but at the same time, I think that overemphasizing identity may be ahistorical. It's a big umbrella and I think we can explain subtleties in the body. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Funcrunch, what are your thoughts on Option 6? The additional wording "at birth" is supported by the body of the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: I don't see Option 6 as a significant improvement over the current wording, as assigned sex is already defined as "sex assigned at birth"; it's explained in the first sentence of the linked article, for anyone not familiar with the term. Funcrunch (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Reverted Lmatt while this RfC is going on. Lmatt, do not change that lead sentence again while this RfC is going on. You were asked to stop in the edit history, above, and your talk page. So stop, and wait for the RfC to finish. Followup note here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Another pointless and time-wasting discussion precipitated by those who seek to change the wording to this week's PC terminology. As with previous similar discussions, such as at Trans woman, it will end with no clear consensus and the original wording retained. --John B123 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @John B123: that is a bit harsh in your wording. A good part of this is to show more unfamiliar users how the consensus-building process works for controversial or important articles. Your choice to weigh in is yours alone and if you do so, please don't complain about your decision to participate. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gwenhope: - Please read Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4 to find out why my words are justified. This seems very much to be a re-run of that discussion. As for participation, it is sometimes necessary for more neutral editors to join in to prevent WP being skewed by those with more radical views. --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @John B123:, what are your thoughts on Option 6, which adds "at birth"?  I don't know if folks read through all the options.  Also, using the phrase "identified at birth" instead of "assigned at birth" has not been proposed here.  I saw that you supported this phrasing in the linked RfC, do you recall if there was consensus against that piece? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kolya Butternut: - I would much prefer "identified" to "assigned" as assigned can be an arbitrary or random choice (as in assigned an aeroplane seat), however the previous consensus was that we should stick with reliable sources, who use "assigned". I initially dismissed Option 6, thinking adding "at birth" was unnecessary. Having read your comments above, the addition removes ambiguity for those that have transitioned and therefore "reassigned". --John B123 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @John B123: regarding the use of "identified", that degrades the sex and gender distinction by implying that those around said fetus/infant recognized some inherent gender quality of the aspiring gestatee/fledgling person. "Assignment" is the only accurate term we can use, as another being's gender cannot be declared by anyone except said being, but gender can be assigned thus. In linguistic terms, gender can only be objectively determined intransitively, but others can assign gender transitively subjectively. Gwenhope (talkcontribs) 20:47, 14 September 2019‎ (UTC) (accidentally left unsigned, fixed by user 23:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC))
  • @Gwenhope: Semantics. In plain English, assigned infers a random decision, identified infers some sort of logical process. As previously stated, RS use "assigned at birth" so we should be using that, but although it is the accepted term, imho it's jargon rather than correct English. --John B123 (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The comment to John above is precisely the misinterpretation of "assignment" that makes "identified" the preferable term. I agree with John that "assignment" is jargon; it means to objectively identify sex; it does not mean to subjectively declare gender. I think a solution would be to define "assign" in the lead sentence, which can be done after the RfC closes. The sex assignment article itself also does not explain the word "assign". I am also concerned with the use of "determination", because that has a specific biological meaning in some contexts. I haven't found a definition of "assign" used in biology, but one can see how it is used in this article from 1979:

    Simple and multiple discriminant functions using mid-shaft femoral circumference for the determination of sex were used to test a sexing method recently proposed by Black. The method was able to correctly assign sex for 82% of the sample, which consisted of 115 North American White femora of verified age and sex. Circumference proved as accurate as any other criteria that have been used in sexing the femur.[1]

    Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
We should definitely not be in the business of defining what "assign" means in this article at all. Kolya and John B123, arguing about "identify" vs. "assign" is not what this article is about, and is not what this Rfc is about, and is a derailment, please stop. Research into what assign means are way off the mark. Stop looking up what "assign" means, and start looking up what "sex assignment" or "gender assignment" means if you must, and there you'll find that these are standard terms used constantly in the research. There is absolutely no need to define these in *this* article, as they are already defined in the Sex assignment article, in the first sentence, and sourced. This is a wiki; anybody who doesn't know what Sex assignment means here, can easily find the definition, one click away. Anybody who doesn't know what assign means, can go to wiktionary and look it up. But that isn't something that is the business of this article, or this Rfc. This side discussion is close to the kind of thing prohibited by WP:NOTFORUM, and isn't helping. If you want to continue this discussion, please continue it at Talk:Sex assignment. Please let's get back to the point of the discussion, which is to help us decide among options for the Rfc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this topic is not directly what this RfC is about, because all choices include "assign", but I am discussing possible additional choices using the word "identify" over "assign".  I understand this is a long discussion and could be moved to a new section, or as you suggested we could identify the question here and link to a discussion at Talk:Sex assignment, but I strongly disagree with your suggestion that this is generally inappropriate.  We can continue this discussion at Talk:Sex_assignment#Assignment,_designation,_or_determination?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @John B123: Sorry. My intention was to improve the lead section with a rigorous definition that wasn't a contradiction in terms. I have read Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4 as you suggested and it certainly seems possible that this discussion will be unhelpful and not produce a consensus. I may have precipitated this discussion but I did not help draft this RfC and I didn't expect all of my versions of the lead to be listed as equal options to comment on. Lmatt (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lmatt: - no need for an apology. Whilst RfCs work on other subjects, it seems there are many different views on trans-related topics that the holders believe are "correct" and are entrenched in those views, so a compromise agreeable to most cannot be achieved. I have no doubt you acted with the best possible motives but, with the benefit of previous experience of these discussions, the chances of changing the lead are remote. --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This RfC may partly rely on terminology in the article Sex assignment, which appears to be unsourced (although the terms are clearly commonly used). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The source cited [10] is discussing the methodology used in the paper to get more meaningful statistics, because of the inherent difficulty of performing a survey on the transgender population. In other words, the citation itself reinforces the idea cross dressing is not the same as being trans. You need to read the study to get this concept, not just cherry-pick the words. Physpkg (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The reference used [10] is not talking about defining “transgender,” but discusses the methodology used in the survey to produce adequate statistics. They included cross-dressers to help cast a wider net. Physpkg (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Cross dressing[edit]

Hi everyone! Transgender pages need to be more specific about cross-dressing. Being transgender is not a cross-dresser. This has been cited numerous times, see the reference from the Human Rights Campaign: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physpkg (talkcontribs) 19:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't state or imply that being transgender means one is a cross-dresser, though, at least not automatically a cross-dresser. In the lead, it notes that "The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers." And lower in the article, "cross-dresser" is under the "Other categories" section because cross-dressers have been included under the transgender umbrella. What are you looking for us to change? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Physpkg:, Welcome to Wikipedia. Echoing and extending what Flyer22 Reborn has said. Notice also at the top of this page, that there are many older discussions that used to be on this page, and that are now archived in eight archived Talk pages. Of those, at least six of them have earlier discussions about the topic of cross-dressers or cross-dressing. When commenting here (or at any Talk page) please have a quick look at the Archives, to see if your question or topic has already been asked or addressed. Even if it's a new angle on an old topic, it can be worth a look, and maybe a link. this brief comment in Archive 6, for example, and this discussion, while wrong-headed, in Archive 5, as well as various others have touched on this topic, in different ways, before.
In addition, there is no "official keeper" of what a term means, and we rely on what the preponderance of reliable sources say on the subject, and in the case of areas like gender and transgender where the terminology is evolving, sometimes rapidly, especially on the preponderance of more recent reliable sources. In the case of your question, the Wikipedia policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT has the answer, or at least, points to it. Sometimes reliable sources define the same thing in different ways; the way Wikipedia deals with this, is not to try to pick one that we agree with, but simply to report all major and significant minority viewpoints, in proportion to their prevalence in scholarly and other reliable sources. That's why a comment like,

Being transgender is not a cross-dresser. This has been cited numerous times,

doesn't imply we should change anything, because you haven't considered WP:DUEWEIGHT. If you could come back here with data from numerous searches you have performed, showing that the vast majority of sources agree with your PoV or with HRC's definition, that would be different. But simply citing HRC and another dozen or two dozen references merely means that there is significant support for that PoV, and it should be included; it does not mean that other views, which may be minority, or may be the majority view, should be excluded, and that only your view should be presented. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


The source that's cited on the page [10] added cross-dressing as falling under "transgender" simply as a means of producing better statistics for the study they were performing. In other words, cross-dressers were included to produce statistically better results. I'm thinking it's more accurate to state that cross-dressing is not necessarily the same thing as being transgender. While some folks do cross-dress before they come out, saying it's the same thing is inaccurate and feeds into the trope of "man in a dress" that so many hate groups like to press, as a means of spreading misinformation regarding trans people. Physpkg (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, the article does not state that it's the same thing. But does it fall under the transgender umbrella, in that transgender may also refer to a person who is a cross-dresser? Yes. And so the article relays that. As you likely know, many transgender people disagree with some things that are labeled transgender. Some people who identify as transsexual don't agree with being called transgender. Some people (both LGBT and non-LGBT) don't agree with non-binary people being called transgender. But, per reliable sources, they all fall under the transgender umbrella. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)