Talk:Transman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETransman_022a.html"