Talk:Transphobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 21 August 2014, Transphobia was linked from The Hill (newspaper), a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Radical Feminism[edit]

People saying there's "no source of radical feminism being transphobic" needs to stop. That section should add, as a reference, Pretendbians.

Whoever keeps deleting my edit, please explain why you think pretendbians (a site that misgenders and openly attacks trans women by giving their private information (phone number, place of work, home address, email address, social networking info) to the public) is not relevant to a wikipedia page about transphobia? StolenBlueBox (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you see my edit summary? I specifically stated that I wasn't going to restore the other text which had no source for the evidence-from-absence statement that most feminists don't do such and such things. However, you also need to improve your content if you wish to add it. At Wikipedia, we use secondary sources in order to confirm the encyclopedia-worthiness of our content. Pretendbians is a real site that does awful things, but that in itself does not make it suitable for inclusion. What you should do is either find secondary sources that indicate that the site might be notable, or work on developing the content we already have on transphobic feminists (like Sheila Jeffreys, Janice Raymond, or Mary Daly who I thought was in the article but who apparently is not!) Does that make sense? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It does! Thank you, I'll acquire sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.88.4 (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it's been said before...[edit]

...but, my goodness, this article is not written from a neutral point of view. Not sure what I can do about it other than noting it; my encyclopedic editing skills are not the greatest, and I don't currently have either the time or the energy to tackle such a huge project. Nevertheless, my assertion remains the same: this is a poorly-written article. Y'all ought to make it less like a polemic and more like, I don't know, an encyclopedic article, maybe? Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not wrong, Dozzzzzzzzzing off, it's got plenty of problems. It'll get better over time. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This looks to be one of those WP articles that is written from a niche point of view and then viciously defended, by proponents of that view, against all WP policy incursions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if there is much more to say[edit]

Seems this has been hijacked by a lot of people who are doing what the article is meant to be about. Why so much prejudice that even talking about it hurts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talkcontribs) 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is difficult to read from someone with lived experiences about this. Been doing my best to note where small improvement contributions can be made, but it would be quite an undertaking. Gersandelf (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity[edit]

I find the second clause of this sentence confusing:

"Many trans people also experience homophobia and heterosexism from people who associate their gender identity with homosexuality, or because they also have a non-heterosexual sexual orientation."

(I assume that "their" refers to "trans people".)

It isn't clear who is meant by "they", or how the first group differs from the second. It appears implicit in both cases that the hostility derives from an underlying homophobia. But surely, sexual orientation is independent of transsexuality. Is the idea that some people don't understand that? Or that non-heterosexuals feel threatened by transsexuals? 172.56.27.159 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative meaning[edit]

Apparently, "transphobia" has an alternative meaning in the context of organometallic chemistry. (See the Google Scholar results.) 172.56.26.119 (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Neat! I'm not sure it's significant enough to merit mention in this article (then again, hatnotes are cheap, so a hatnote mentioning the Trans effect would probably be harmless), but I'll see about adding it to Wiktionary. :-) -sche (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

NO ACTION:
User blocked, and is strongly advised to get back to work. Sceptre (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2014 (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.

This article is too pro-trans. When I attempted to add an alternative point of view regarding this topic (to achieve WP:BALANCE) it was reverted right away. The statement was cited with an article by someone notable enough that there is a Wikipedia article about them, so it satisfies WP:N. It's not like I added anecdotal evidence about these individuals calling me a TERF (which is a slur used by these people towards real women); the statement I added was cited and fully compliant with Wikipedia policies. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

When I navigated minutes ago to the link you provided to substantiate your edit (now rightly reverted), I was met by a great big white-text-on-black-screen announcement: "The article you are trying to read has been reported by the community as hateful or abusive content." Thus, your citation is not valid. JohnValeron (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
When I read the article a few days ago it didn't have that announcement. Apparently there has been some public controversy regarding the article and Gavin McInnes has been fired from his job as a result of responses to the article. [1] If anything, the widespread public discourse surrounding the article should mean that his view is more notable, not less. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully, your opinion that hateful or abusive content constitutes a "neutral point of view" is not tolerated by Wikipedia policy. If you wish to promote hate speech, please try a different website. JohnValeron (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how disagreeing with the concept that transphobia is a negative thing is considered "hate speech". The whole concept of "transphobia" is being promoted to trivialize the experiences of real women (or "womyn-born-womyn" as some people call us). 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A TERF walks the halls of the Rayburn House Office Building! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.78.140 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not for an instant believe that the vandal abusing the U.S. House of Representatives IP address 143.231.249.138 is a woman, as HE tries to suggest in this thread. It's just another silly ruse by the puerile male intern/staffer desperate to become the House's very own Jester. HE is quite simply a criminal, illegally misusing US Govt property and Internet service. He should be fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. JohnValeron (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What is your obsession with the users from this shared IP address? I don't know what part of my statements would make you think that I am a man. There's nothing illegal about editing Wikipedia to promote official business that has been explicitly authourized by the Representative. When you have other Representatives trying to push for laws such as ENDA, or when you have the EU using neocolonialist methods to impose transgenderism on the nation of Georgia through a visa agreement, it's all the more important. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Besides ripping off us American taxpayers, you are a barefaced liar. I defy you to name the Representative who has "explicitly authorized" you to promote official business by vandalizing Wikipedia, as in this case where you tried to link to an article that its own community ostracized as "hateful or abusive content." If it's official business, why remain anonymous—other than to abuse the position to which you've been entrusted? JohnValeron (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't answer that. WP:DOXING you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement 31.211.192.162 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Newbie
Not to worry, Newbie. There's no danger of IP 143.231.249.138 saying anything truthful at Wikipedia. He's never done so yet. Why would he start now? JohnValeron (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
To 143.231.249.138: No, nothing "illegal" about "editing Wikipedia to promote official business", but certainly against Wikipedia policy. You've been blocked numerous times already for disruptive editing, keep it up and a permanent block on this IP address is impending.

To JohnValeron: Tone it down please. This is a talk page for improvement of the article, not a battleground. -- œ 07:42, 21 August 2014 (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.

Views about transsexuality[edit]

The section header above added by Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC) to separate it from the closed #Neutral point of view discussion just above.

It's rather disturbing that any debate over whether transsexuality should in fact be viewed negatively is so roughly censored by the pro-trans.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether you view transsexuality negatively or positively is entirely up to you, and you may hold whatever opinions you please about it. Here on this Talk page, we discuss subject matter pertaining to the article Transphobia, and how to improve it. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it is not a soapbox, which means that this is not the proper forum for discussing your opinions about transphobia, although there are plenty of forums off-site that will welcome your thoughts. Please confine your comments here on the Talk page to improving the article. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe the article would be improved by viewing its subject with a more neutral point of view rather than taking the soapbox position that it must be viewed negatively.NPOV is supposed to be Wikipedia policy yet this article as edited allows no trace of it.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@12.144.5.2: Thousands, perhaps millions, of articles on Wikipedia might be improved by viewing its subject with a more neutral point of view. This page, the Talk page for Transphobia, is about discussing ways to improve this article. If you have some concrete ideas about how to do that, by all means please go into that in more detail here, so other editors can discuss your suggestions. Otherwise, it's just idle complaining, and doesn't belong here. Do you have anything specific to contribute about how to improve this article? Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The article in its present state consistently conflates critical sentiment toward transsexuality with violent conduct toward transsexuals,and makes no presentation of the grounds on which critical sentiment is based.The introduction declares the mere possession of such sentiments similar to racism and sexism,when those with such sentiments generally see no such connection.The only presentation of negative reasoning is under "social conservatism" and alludes entirely to religious motivations.No respect is given to how the transsexual appears to the critic's logic while the transsexual's own self-view is presumed infallible.This does not allow for neutral presentation of the issue or explanation of where disagreement lies,for example,on whether it is sound public policy to grant legal protection to transgender identities.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, but someone at this IP has been making contributions since 2003, and if it's you, then you know the ropes around here well enough to know how to interact on a Talk page, what's off-topic and what isn't. You speak well and clearly can put across an argument: now, if you just translate that into specific suggestions on how to improve the article, editors can engage with you. If you just keep restating your opinions, I have to remind you that the Talk page guidelines say, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it."
Please make specific, concrete suggestions on how to improve the article, or there's no point continuing this. If you just want to vent, this is not the place. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just made 2 changes that I feel introduce a needed counterpoint...can they avoid reversion to presentation of the pro-trans POV as incontestable fact?--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Your changes were reverted instantly, at no big surprise to you, I'm sure. As this is no longer about improving the article anymore, but about your editing behavior, please find the continuation of this discussion at User talk:12.144.5.2#Disruptive editing at Transphobia. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the Representative's Name?[edit]

143.231.249.138 said: "There's nothing illegal about editing Wikipedia to promote official business that has been explicitly authourized by the Representative."

What is the name of "the Representative" who authorized government resources and allocated taxpayer dollars to edit a Wikipedia article on "transphobia"? SqlPac (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "phobia"[edit]

I believe that the entire article is fundamentally flawed, as "phobia" means "fear of," but the article nonetheless defines transphobia as an entire range of negative attitudes towards transgendered people, none of which are fear.

Does anyone happen to know an English professor or other expert who could comment on this and possibly re-write the article? 173.172.209.100 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale is the same type of rationale that people keep applying to the Homophobia article talk page, as recently as this and this discussion. See the FAQ at the top of that talk page; what is there similarly applies to the Transphobia article, especially since, as noted with WP:Reliable sources in the Homophobia article, transphobia is an aspect of homophobia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason that "homophobia" is widely regarded to not mean a fear of homosexuals is because of activist movements that have, for the past several decades, applied the word to anyone with ill feelings towards homosexuals in an effort to suggest that the reasons for said feelings are rooted in fear.
While the intentions behind that are noble, the method is intellectually dishonest, and has resulted in a word that, when one thinks about it, makes no sense. 173.172.209.100 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As the lead of the Homophobia article and its sources show, the term homophobia does include fear; it, however, includes other things as well. And either way, fear is naturally a negative feeling; so, yes, it is naturally a subset of what it means to have negative feelings. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The emotion of fear plays an important biological role in all animals, and is not a "negative feeling," even though it can have harmful impacts under some situations. That aside, taking an article that incorrectly describes its subject and then claiming that the article is correct because the incorrect description is similar to the correct one only serves to mislead anyone who reads the page. 173.172.209.100 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ask people whether or not they consider fear a negative feeling, and I'm certain that the vast majority of them will state that it is. And their perceptions that it is negative certainly qualifies it as a negative feeling. As for the rest, I've addressed that above. I'm done replying in this discussion, as similar discussions at the Homophobia article talk page show that it will be fruitless. Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That there are fears behind homo/trans-phobic beliefs and actions isn't so controversial, but "fear" is not limited to that which poses an immediate personal harm. Just look at Societal attitudes toward homosexuality (and of course this and the homophobia article). People still say gay people will corrupt "the children", in the early days of AIDS it was thought to be a homosexuality-related disease, some have routinely promoted a link between homosexuality and pedophilia, some religious figures preach fire and damnation if you're gay, parents disown their children, it's illegal in some parts of the world and was illegal in many more parts of the world... These are fears with a long history.

But there's a simpler answer: "-phobia"/"-phobe" as a suffix pre-exists both the DSM and clinical psychology. See hydrophobe, for example. It can mean fear and can also mean something closer to "aversion" or "repelled". --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason the word doesn't make actual sense is because "transphobia" isn't a real word. It's a made up word - and you're right, 173.172.209.100, its literal meaning would be "an unreasoning fear of change" which is obviously not what the article here is using it for. 173.209.103.239 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for linguistic prescriptivism. We do not define the discussion, we report on it. It is not our place in any sense to change the nomenclature. ALL words are made up by somebody. If it's published in reliable sources, it's good enough for us. If you have a problem with the term transphobia, go publish. 2602:306:80B3:DB00:D496:6569:3284:ACC (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

All words are made up. Knittea (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Manifestations - Gay and lesbian communities[edit]

Regarding the phrase "trannie boys, boydykes, FTM's, Lesbian Avengers and young gender-variant women", I understand the reference; I'm merely concerned about the phrasing and its overall nessecity to the page. I feel it should either be more clearly shown to be a quote or restated in a way that doesn't use derogitory terms. I'm not an expert on transexuallism, I've only been dealing with the terms associated with it for a number of months, so any advice on how to best phrase this would be greatly appreciated.

HartDesign HartDesign (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we'd just want to make sure we were correct in our paraphrase. The festival had excluded trans women for a while and the source is saying this is the first year it excluded trans men, but I'm unclear on the nuances associated with all of the different words here. "Lesbian Avengers" are apparently cis, but support inviting trans women and were evicted in solidarity. (I'm just getting this from our article on Camp Trans and from following up in sources, because I was trying to find out what Lesbian Avengers had to do with it.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I have no intention of compromizing the truth I just feel it could be better worded. How about:
-the first time the 'womyn-born-womyn only' policy has been used against trans males, women supporting the transexual community and young gender-variant women.-
as I'm pretty sure this encompasses all the phrases used. FTM as I understand refers to those who have undergone sexual ressignment surgery so an aditional footnot may be required for them? HartDesign (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrase is in quotes because it is (probably) in the source and makes sense in the context as Rosecelese mentioned. I say "probably" in the source because I don't have access to the source . . . the ref is not that good and even has a wikilink in it but if you google the phrase, it shows up often in context of excluding transmen. The phrase should be restored in quotes.
FTM can be linked to Trans man. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm unaware of its significance to the source, however out of context it uses rather jarring slang to refer to delicate subjects. I'm only asking that the choice of words be reviewed in order to say the same thing in a different way, thereby still correctly informing readers without offending anyone. Perhaps the refference also requires a review in order to show this. HartDesign (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Manifestations in Social Conservatism"[edit]

1) The Papacy is not a part of the US Christian Right. In this subhead, they are grouped together. Pope John Paul II's judgment is recited, and then the article states, "Other Christian Right opponents of transgender rights..."

2) The article fails to distinguish that an official Catholic pronouncement on a moral matter is binding on conscience only on those who accept the authority of the Church in such matters. Natural law theory may claim to be, but to the extent that it is, it has to argue itself on rational grounds, rather than faith-based ones, convincingly in the arena of ideas. This subsection makes none of these distinctions.

3) The Religious Tolerance Consultants of Ontario website, which is the only source cited for this section hardly seems reliable. The claim is made that sacramental Confession is a way around the Catholic moral teaching that moral evil may not be done so that good may come of it, since someone could do something immoral, with the intention of confessing it later, while still enjoying the benefits of the evil action. This is not a viable solution to the dilemma within Catholic theology. This parodic presentation of confession ignores entirely that such a pre-meditated course of action represents the sin of presumption. NihilNominis (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The word misgendering[edit]

In [2], Godsy removed the word "misgender", claiming it was a neologism (and citing WP:NEO, although that page seems to concern articles about neologisms, not with which words articles use). I see someone has already correctly undone that removal. A look at an ngram of Google Books' corpus shows that "misgender(ed| ing| etc)" has been common enough to plot since at least 1990, and it's about as common as other terms we use in articles, like "methyl sulfate" — specifically, "methyl sulfate" is slightly more common, while the phrase we use to title the article on methyl sulfate, "methyl bisulfate", is so much less common than "misgendered" that it doesn't even meet Google Books' threshold to be plotted. On Wiktionary I gathered a couple citations from 1990; incidentally, those citations and others show that the term is in no way limited to discussions of or by trans people; one uses it as an accurate assessment of what happened when someone innocently typo'ed "Patricia" as "Patrick". -sche (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit you pointed to shows Godsy citing MOS:NEO, which is not the same thing as WP:NEO. Either way, this matter was taken to WP:ANI, with Dennis Brown stating in his closure of that matter, "As others have pointed out, this isn't an ANI issue, it is a WP:MOS issue. Please take it to the proper subpage there. Admin do not decide content issues." Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is MOS or an RFC, it just needs a bigger audience than a single talk page, as it is a wiki wide issue. And not at ANI ;) Dennis Brown - 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First sentence is wrong[edit]

The first sentence is wrong in its description for the basis of transphobia. Currently the first sentence reads,

Transphobia (or much less commonly transprejudice) is a range of antagonistic attitudes and feelings against transsexuality and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – Terms for prejudice).

Number one, the lede is supposed to summarize what's in the article body, and not introduce new material that is not mentioned elsewhere in greater detail. This description of the basis of transphobia as rooted in gender expression does not appear in the article body.

Number two, it's incorrect to state that transphobia is based solely on gender expression. For some transphobes, probably the majority, this statement is no doubt true, but not for everyone. There are some radical opponents who are opposed to it in principle, and for them it is not true. Statements from radicals like the one from Janice Raymond, "All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact" make it clear that her opposition is fundamental, and is not based on any acceptable gender expression for a transsexual; it is the very idea and existence of a transsexual which she opposes, not how they dress or act. This counterexample (and she is not alone) renders the definition in the first sentence unacceptable.

To remedy this, the article should probably include a "Definition" section, which should probably be the first one of the body. Needless to say, it should be carefully sourced, and competing interpretations (if there are such) should be represented in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. Whatever consensus we end up with as the correct description, may then be summarized in the lede. (The article contains sections for both Origins as well as Etymology and use but neither one contains a definition. Perhaps the definition could be included in one of them, along with a section rename; perhaps, "Definition and Origins".)

Finally, as a minor stylistic or formatting issue, I don't think "(see Phobia – Terms for prejudice)" is appropriate in the first sentence, or indeed in the article at all; there's a "See also" section for that. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, Without commenting on the appropriateness of a "Definition" section, I believe that a simple improvement wou;d be to remove , based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – Terms for prejudice) from the lead section.
Unless there are objections from editors, I will make this change later in the week. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ryk72 that works for me. As I wasn't sure how controversial the article was, let alone how much work may or may not have gone into consensus for the Lede, I was loathe to change it myself. Thanks for your response. Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The removal discussed above has now been made. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Globalize[edit]

The article should be expanded to include views of Transphobia in other parts of the world.

The Anglo-Saxon world undoubtedly generates much written material in Queer theory in general and the discussion of Transphobia more specifically, and is very likely the leading language of publication. However, it is not a topic that is limited to the English-speaking world. If nothing else, the Language Links in the left sidebar will show the interest in the topic in other parts of the world. The Wikipedia articles in German, French, and Portuguese all have significant references, bibliography entries, and/or External links in their respective languages, with somewhat fewer in Italian, Russian and Spanish.

The article should reflect this. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

this article should not exist[edit]

neither should any article related to transsexuality and the like. it's all falsehood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.88.46 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why, exactly? I personally believe that this page is somewhat subjective and biased on the matter, absolutely, but i don't see why it should be removed.94.214.239.5 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Both of you! Not in any way shape or form is discrimination okay! Increasingly, transgender individuals(especially now) are demonized, assaulted, and studies show that this hate rhetoric is ruining their lives! (Redacted) It would also help if one of you helped me take of the worldview exclamation note on the transphobia home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinawa Rosebud (talkcontribs) 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not the duty of wikipedia to analyse the validity of claims. As I noted above, if you have a problem with the terminology, take it to academia and publish. This article cites reliable sources which vouch for its relevance and truth. 2602:306:80B3:DB00:D496:6569:3284:ACC (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Deadname redirect[edit]

Deadname redirects to Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion, but that section, nor the entire page, contains the text "deadname". why not? Should it better soft-redirect to wikt:deadname? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe, while I have no personal preference for either redirect target (this article or the wiktionary entry), I do note that the Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion section includes the term "deadnaming"; a verbing of the "deadname" noun. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to Summary[edit]

I've made a series of edits to the article in order to improve the Summary section, based on the WP:LEAD guideline that the Summary should introduce or summarize topics already covered in the article itself. There were errors here both of omission and commission that have been addressed.

In the former case, there were sections in the article (such as the long #Manifestations section) which had no mention in the summary at all. In this case, I attempted to weave together the subheadings and main concepts from the section in question in the article into a short summary, and added that to the Lead.

In the case of errors of commission, there were topics discussed in the Summary section that weren't covered in the article at all, for example the related concepts of cissexism, cisnormativity, etc., and some of the consequences to esteem including acting out of various kinds. In this case, I moved most or all of the Summary content discussing it into an existing section if an appropriate one could be found (e.g., section #Consequences) and if not, I created a new section (e.g., #Related concepts). In place of the block of text moved out of the summary, I added a brief intro summarizing the moved content.

There is very little new content in this series of edits. I did not touch the lead paragraph at all. The main addition to the lead is the new paragraph three in the Summary which summarizes section 3 Manifestations. The main changes to the article resulted simply from moving chunks of text out of the summary into the right section where appropriate, and perhaps adding some connecting words to ensure smooth flow. I welcome review and any modifications to further improve the Summary and the article.

Further work is needed: in particular, I think the lead paragraph is unwieldy, goes into too much detail, and contains material not covered in the article at all, such as a definition, and the acceptability (or not) of transphobic attitudes. The body of the article needs a new #Definition section, which should get most of the text from the lead paragraph and expand upon it, leaving a more concise lead paragraph in the summary itself. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to this edit you made, I moved and tweaked the material, as seen here and here. I think the term trans bashing should be re-added to the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Third sentence in lead[edit]

Commonly an aspect of homophobia,[3][4] it is similar to racism and sexism, but while views that are homophobic, racist or sexist have largely become unacceptable in modern society, significantly more individuals still maintain transphobic views without fear of censure.[5]

Homophobia, racism and sexism are the norm in many (probably most) places in the world. Even if that weren't the case, the article should still avoid putting all societies in the world under the generalizing umbrella of so-called 'modern society'. Another problem is the world 'still' near the end of the sentence. It implies that those individuals hold outdated views. (And although I personally agree with that, it is subjective.)

I think this sentence needs to be rewritten or removed completely. Uncle Alf (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I don't have access to the source that's supporting this statement (which honestly seems questionable to me, modern Western society is still pretty homophobic/racist/sexist, but), but maybe "Even among people and societies which frown on other prejudices such as homophobia, racism, or sexism, transphobia may be present"? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I found the section of the cited reference which I think was being used to support the sentence, but it only speaks about the United States. I have modified the sentence accordingly. -sche (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please excuse my very late reply. Thank you for editing; I'd say these issues are resolved now. Uncle Alf (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Neologisms[edit]

A discussion about neologisms in the Transphobia article is taking place on a User talk page that rather belongs here instead. Hopefully it will be moved, but in the meanwhile it can be viewed here. (Please feel free to clobber this post by placing that discussion on top of this one, and linking here from the Talk page.) Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Transprejudice comment has apparently been ignored[edit]

There is a comment at the beginning of the lead which states:

PLEASE NOTE: When the article Transprejudice was merged into this article, consensus was reached that that term must remain in this article. Thus, please do not remove references to the term "transprejudice" from this article. Thank you.

The article currently contains no instances of this term. Perhaps I'm too new to have been part of any conversation that overrode this comment, but if that's not the case, then this needs to be fixed. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the conversation that lead to this consensus. Could some more established editor in this article space provide a reference? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
That consensus was reached here. The section was removed in version 625011041 on 23:18, 10 September 2014 by 3298230932782302 (talk · contribs). The consensus to keep the section after a merge was reached in 2007, and the section was removed in 2014. I don't have an opinion on whether this still remains consensus at this point, but since it was removed without discussion contrary to consensus, I have restored the section for the time being, pending a new discussion. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation issues[edit]

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of this article as well as the Etymology section have no citations included whatsoever. I was going to add a citation needed tag when I saw it the first time, but I thought that so many tags wouldn't be constructive to the article. However, all of these claims really need sources in order to improve the article if at all possible. Kmwebber (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of the article are a summary of sourced material appearing in the body of the article. There's a judgment call involved, but Wikipedia policy on the lead paragraph does not require redundant citations in the lead, when the material underlying it in the body is already sourced. Please consult the main body of the article for citations. The #Etymology section should certainly be sourced, and I've tagged it so; thanks for calling that out. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Misgendering - practice or experience?[edit]

I'm hesitant to dive in here but wanted to ask about this sentence: "Misgendering is the experience of being labeled by others as having ...". Isn't misgendering the practice of doing this, not the experience of being misgendered? I'm happy to change the page to reflect that if I'm right in my understanding but don't want to trample on something that's presumably had some thought before. Mortee (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. I wondered if it had been changed at some point out of concern that misgendering might be seen as automatically malicious if it were framed as an action on the part of the misgender-er, or something like that, but it's like that at least going back to 2014! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

A certain problem with this article[edit]

is that it conflates things such as physical violence, verbal abuse, or ideologies viewing trans people as less than fully human (thus justifying the former behaviors), with philosophical or political arguments against notions such as male people being literally women if they identify themselves as such. From what I can tell, Wikipedia already has a WP:MOS policy of referring to such people as "trans woman," which is like "black woman" or "blond woman" or "tall woman" etc., and as such implicitly supports the ideological position that the word "woman" is to be defined in such a way that it includes certain male people (even though this goes against the definition given in most English dictionaries including Wiktionary, as well as the introduction of the Wikipedia article 'woman'), and in fact I don't even have a problem following such a rule if that's what it takes to contribute articles in which this issue arises, but I would draw a line at the point where opposition to that ideological position is represented, on Wikipedia, as being equivalent to committing or supporting abuse against transgender people. Male people, or men, are full human beings regardless of what they wear, how they present, how they identify themselves to others, what beliefs they hold (including the belief of being a woman), or what psychological or neurological condition they have that makes them desire to alter their sexual anatomy, and as such it makes no sense to claim it to be transphobia when someone says that they view trans women as being really a particular type of male person, or in short, a kind of man. To call this abuse seems akin to calling open atheists abusers of Christians, because some deeply convicted Christians feel strongly offended by the notion that their deity doesn't actually exist. If Wikipedia is to remain neutral towards differing ideologies (be it religious or political ones), then there needs to be a strict distinction between actual harm, and ideological disagreement leading to personal offense.

In conclusion, Wikipedia may say for instance that feminists who don't see trans women as women are perceived as being transphobic by some members of the transgender community for having opinions that offend them, but not that they are transphobic, which is the current implication in some parts. In light of this, I'll see what improvements I can make to the article (specifically in the feminism section, as that's a topic of interest to me). I wanted to declare the logic and intention upfront as I imagine that some of the changes I'll make may offend some of the other editors. I also apologize in advance for any possible such offense caused; please understand that I merely want to nudge the article back towards the neutrality Wikipedia aims for. TaylanUB (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. They are not a forum to discuss your personal feelings about a topic, or whether certain things make logical sense to you or not, or whether one thing you don't like seems akin to something quite different. This all sounds like a declaration that you want to add material that adheres to your view of what is "logical", as opposed to what we actually do here at Wikipedia, which is to add and organize material that expresses the consensus of what reliable sources have written about a particular point, and then cite those sources. That's pretty much it. So it would be better to just forget about figuring out whether something is "perceived as X" versus "is X", and just confine yourself to reading up about "X" in reliable sources, and reporting what they say about it.
Secondly, you've already pretty much warned that you're going to offend somebody, before you've even started. Why do you say that? If you faithfully report what reliable sources say about some point related to Transphobia and then add a citation for your change, you won't give offense if you've followed the guidelines. Regarding NPOV: certainly a neutral point of view is one of the core guidelines of Wikipedia, so "nudg[ing] the article back towards neutrality" is a good objective; just make sure you understand what neutrality is in the way the guideline describes it; for example, there are principles of proportionality, which is covered in the section on due and undue weight. "Nudging" doesn't mean making the article agree more with the way you see the world. Stick to what the sources say.
Finally, before you dive in to the article, you might try picking one thing you plan to change, and discuss your proposed change here on the talk page, first. And good luck! Mathglot (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your response. I'm still trying to get the hang of the exact rules, but my intent is to make things more neutral as some of the articles/sections regarding this ideological divide seem biased in some ways. (I suppose they're mostly written by people on one side of the debate, specifically those dominating the public discourse, so some amount of bias is to be expected.) I'm doing my best to curb my own biases, and hopefully others will correct me when I fail at that. The reason I've said in advance that some of my edits may offend people is that I've experienced a constant and extreme vitriol with regard to this topic on pretty much every medium through which I've talked with people about it so far, as the positions I hold are being literally held on roughly equal grounds with neo-Nazism by a substantial number of people, including some prominent figures. (Example: Autostraddle senior editor Heather Hogan has very seriously compared separatist lesbians [who I don't belong to but ideologically agree with] to the "alt-right" on Twitter, which is generally considered a euphemism for "neo-Nazi" by the same political circles [and by mine as well, to be clear].) Consequently, I'm really exhausted and permanently walking on eggshells even just trying to neutrally present these opinions anywhere. In fact, in another talk page, it already happened that a Wikipedia editor opined that a change I recommended to an article may have the adverse effect of indirectly leading to more deaths of transgender people, although they expressed this kindly. I hope this clears up my seeming "paranoia" so to say.
All that said, things aren't nearly as bad as I had feared they might be. So far, I had more headache with ideological positions while trying to edit software-related articles! :-) TaylanUB (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I have some feedback for you, but this is getting too far afield from "improving the article" so I will follow up with you on your Talk page. Please do not reply here, except to pose questions or make comments about the article, and how to improve it. This discussion continued at User talk:TaylanUB#comments at Talk:Transphobia. Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transphobia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Transphobia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transphobia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)