Talk:List of transgender people/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In fact the whole article is a bit of a nonsense in its use of vocabulary. The words 'woman' (and 'man') are used throughout - presumably to mean someone who was born as a woman (or man) unless the context requires otherwise - yet exception was taken when the word woman was used of Julie Hesmondhalgh. The list, in general, does not tell you in what way any individual was transgendered, so why argue particularly for just one character?
Excuse me? Have you read the article? "Woman" is used several times to describe transwomen, in other words, women who were not born with the body to match. Same with man. Where "woman" is used to describe the physical sex, it is clear from the context. (As in Billy Tipton, woman who lived as a male jazz musician). So obviously, it is necessary to state that in this case a cisgender woman is meant. Not to mention that calling somebody "cisgendered" is hardly a way to describe how that person is transgendered. The two are mutually exclusive, and there is only one way to be cisgendered. Either you are or you are not. Sorry, but your constant removal, each time with a new non-argument, starts to resemble vandalism. -- AlexR 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article, as written, is a complete farce. Worse than being useless, it might be construed as "disinformation." By lumping together a half dozen different catagories under one name, it promotes confusion and renders the term "transgendered" meaningless. It is a random list of people who have, for various time periods, and for quite disparate reasons, behaved in some manner that, in our time and culture, is more usually associated with the other sex.

This list is an inane mish-mash.

  • Thor once wore women's clothes as a disguise.
  • Milton Berle got into drag to get laughs.
  • James Barry petended to be a man for job opportunities.
  • Ed Wood was a transvestite.
  • Harvey Fierstein is a homosexual.
  • Christine Jorgensen was a transsexual.

It is ridiculous to even list the first two. One wonders how Jeanne D'Arc escaped notice. Perhaps she will soon appear. After all, she didn't go into battle wearing a frilly dress and riding sidesaddle. Had this been written 75 years ago, would any woman who ever wore slacks have made the list?

In an earlier exchange Martin wrote,

Some people use transgender as a catch-all term for crossing of gender boundaries. Some people use transgender to specifically refer to be people between genders. Thus the term has two meanings. Neither meaning is "incorrect".

This is pure garbage. Just because "some people" misuse a term, that does not give their misuse legitimacy. That is rampant "Humpty-Dumptyism," where words mean whatever the speaker idiosyncratically decides they mean.

Conflating transsexuals, transvestites, hermaphrodites, homosexuals (not specified, but listed), mixing them together and adding in people wearing disguises or costumes, does a real disservice. This article should be replaced with a disambiguation page pointing to the individual category lists. Thank you. B00P 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Contents

lifestyle

In presenting this list, we do not mean to imply that the fact that these people being transgender makes it a more or less valid lifestyle or condition -- that would be a clearly bogus argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad vericundiam (see logical fallacy).

I don't think this is helpful. For one thing, I don't think there's any language in the page that implies the contrary; a fortiori, I think the way it's worded sounds actually hostile, achieving the opposite of its stated intent. Perhaps we could come up with a different way to word it. - Montréalais

I copied it from listing of noted atheists (and similar pages). I think the point does have to be made, but by all means mess around with the wording... -Martin (aka Lucinda)


I had a bit of trouble leaving Milton Berle on this list, myself. -- Zoe
Milton Berle? How the heck did he make it onto the list?
I don't even know who Milton Berle is...


Milton Berle

I just changed Milton Berle from "drag queen" to "drag comedian", but don't you think there needs to be some analytical thought used in applying present-day categories to people from the past? Some of the people on this list, probably including Milton Berle, never heard of transgendered anything. Ortolan88

If transgendered includes transexuals, cross-dressers (homosexual and heterosexual), women who joined medieval armies, Molly Pitcher, hermaphrodites, and drag comedians, meaning no disrespect, it is not a rigorous category.

I'm hesitant to continue this discussion because my questions about rigor on lists have had a way of getting out of hand (a mere mention of the word "disambiguation" on of the football talk pages started a discussion that rivals the medieval doctors in complexity, prolixity, and passion), but maybe a broader introduction to the list about how gender and gender-identified clothing are fluid categories, and how many people through the ages have jumped from one category to another would help. When we say "People who have been transgendered", who "transgendered" them? Ortolan88

transgender/transsexual/and transvestite

This page is confusing transvestite, transgender, and transsexual. Susan Mason

In what way? Martin

In that its a list of transgender/transsexual/and transvestite persons, but is only called "list of transgendered people" Susan Mason

Transgender can be construed as a catchall term. - Montréalais

It is somewhat incorrect to do so. Susan Mason

Some people use transgender as a catch-all term for crossing of gender boundaries.
Some people use transgender to specifically refer to be people between genders.
Thus the term has two meanings. Neither meaning is "incorrect". Martin

Transgender is widely accepted as an "umbrella" term which loosely includes all whose gender runs in some way contrary to stereotypical heterosexist expectations. It is widely accepted as such, and as inclusive of such categories as "transsexual", "transvestite", "genderqueeer" and much more. That said, the title of this page - "List of transgendered people" - is problematic. We are not "transgendered", we are "transgender". Transgender is a characteristic, not something that was applied to us or which befell us. One is not "gayed", "lesbianed", "maled" or "femaled"; nor is one "transgendered". - Nancy Nangeroni GenderTalk

Articles required and separate lists?

I dropped the line in the heading that said only those with their own wiki articles were listed, because I just added some who do not yet have articles, but for whom I will write articles (although Rene Richards was already listed earlier without her own article). I will reinstate the wiki-requirement line as soon as I get around to writing up those on the list now, with the exception of the few drag performers I added from the GLB list. I have a personal…distaste for drag performers and I feel it would be unfair and ill-advised for me to attempt to write articles on those people. If they cannot be filled out, I will remove them again. If anyone else wants to start some of these missing articles, that’d be really great too. : )


Perhaps it would be worth listing them seperately? You could use a header for each list... Martin
I'm sorry, Martin, I must be having a blonde day. I'm not sure what you mean, list what separately? Do you mean a heading for TG's, for drag queens, etc.? If that's what you mean, I can sorta see the logic behind it, but I just don't want to be the one to do it. It could be construed as divisionist or biased and that could get catty pretty fast, don't you think? Paige
I was thinking of one list for "modern" TGs, and another list for historical/mythological TGs... Martin 08:28 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Nice work :) Martin
Nice idea in the first place, Martin. It looks a little better this way, I think. Paige

Gwen Araujo

Was Gwen Araujo TS? Of course that depends on one's definition of TS...

How on earth did Kate Bornstein stay off this page for so long? :)

  • Gwen Araujo was a pre-op TS at the time she was murdered.Rickyrab 03:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Please leave out the "pre-op" designation. The shape of a person's genitals is a personal issue of no concern to any who are not intimate with that individual. As such, its use is insulting to all transsexuals, implying that we ought to be categorized by the shape of our genitals or whether or not we have subjected ourselves to assimilationist surgery. It also presumes that surgery is our normative destination, which is it most surely not. - Nancy Nangeroni GenderTalk

var

Source for Sara Davis Buechner: http://www.tgguide.com/soapbox/news/042.htm
Tualha 06:23, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone know if Roberta Cowell is still alive? Can't find much about her on the web. -- Tualha 15:58, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I heard that she had died, and that he had reverted to wearing male dress towards the end of her life

Achilles and Heracles and again, seperate lists

Are Achilles and Heracles really "transgendered"? Achilles, at least, was only disguising himself to get out of the Trojan War. It's not like he did it as a lifestyle choice, and I don't think you can say is "known" for that. Adam Bishop 03:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a separate list of people who cross-dressed temporarily, or for reasons of disguise (however, I agree with the above comments that classification may be tricky). Bonnie Prince Charlie would be another name to add to such a list. --David Edgar 07:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think these people who clearly did so only for a limited time and for a definite purpose, which has nothing to do with transgender, should at least get a seperate heading. It should also be mentioned that it is a rather common behaviour, including many many women who cross-dress in times of war, often to escape rape. Of course, we have few names here and there are not all that many famous people among them, either. But nevertheless, it happened (and still happens).
Maybe a list of historical people would not be a bad idea, because for historical people one always needs a warning; compare Talk:Elagabalus. -- AlexR 13:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alexis Arquette

Alexis Arquette should probably be in the list, as she has announced plans for a complete gender reassignment (not to mention intending to film the whole process for a documentary). DanaJohnson 02:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

The article:

Transgender, for the purposes of this article, is an umbrella term that can include transsexuals, transvestic fetishists, cross-dressers, intersexuals, drag queens, drag kings and others.
Hatshepsut, female Pharaoh of Egypt who wore male clothing and even a false beard

Hatshepsut fits none of those definitions (except possibly other) so therefore to say she was a Transgender is untrue. Hatshepsut wore males clothing for the mere fact that it was a uniform. Now some historians (I'm thinking Gardner here) do say she was a transvestite, but he is heavily biased against Hatshepsut (and says her being one as a bad thing).

If you are going to count every person who wore a uniform people wore in their profession, I would like to see every single notable actor (especially from Shakespears time) on the list due to the fact that in plays men had to dress up as women. Which I think, to do so, would be ridiculous. Hatshepsut was 100% female, she didn't consider herself male. It's just Pharaohs were traditionally male, so she had to wear their clothing to be a pharaoh.

I agree in this case, as far as I know, there is no reasonable evidence that Hatshepsut was in any way transgendered. If one considers her doning ceremonial beards as cross-dressing (which is stretching the definition a bit) than it is clearly a cross-dressing out of necessity, and, as far as I know, it was the sole "male" item she wore. So indeed, she should be removed, unless somebody else has other, substantiated information.
BTW, if she went with the fasion of the time, did she have any hair to cut short in the first place? --AlexR 13:33, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good question Alex (about the hair thing) and I have no idea actually. I removed Hatshepsut from the list (I really felt she didn't belong). However there is a comment about it here and if people feel she should be added back I definitely don't mind discussing it. If a "controversial transgenders" section is created (a list of people who some believe they were a transgender while others don't) she should definitely be added then.--John Lynch 13:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pope John II

Is there any evidence to support this claim? Suggestion that he was or is a cross dresser is potentially offending for Catholics and Christians in general and should be therefore backed by evidence or removed.

Depends how you look at it. The legend of "Pope Joan" certainly exists, and has existed for a very long time. (It would be a cross-dressing "she", though, not a "he", at least physically speaking.) There is not proof for hir actual existance, though, but that is already stated. I can not see what could be possibly offending by simply telling people that this legend exists, because it definitely did since the 15th century, and there was a bestseller book about hir a few years ago. So s/he is definitely worth mentioning. -- AlexR 22:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for raising that issue – I misread the page and thought it is a claim about the current Pope, John Paul II. AndyBrandt 23:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dead trannies are unoffensive? Hyacinth 18:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And what is your point? The info we are arguing about is irrelevant - the transsexual is the character, why comment at all about the actress, let alone use irregularly formed neologisms to describe her? Nor do I accept that a list of transgendered people will only be read (or should only be read) by people who are 'in' with transsexual jargon, or who want to know a lot about transgender issues - I came to this page by accident, for instance, and as Hyacinth noted, people come to encyclopaedias to learn what they do not know. As a compromise, I wouldn't revert if you added 'played by Julie Hesmondhalgh, and then anyone interested in her could find out about her. Finally, I note that there are (quite properly) links to lists of transgendered issues at the bottom, so those who are interested in them can find out more there. jguk 05:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Making the article intelligible

Have removed the word cisgendered as it is a pretty much unknown neologism (only 42 unique hits in google if you exclude wikipedia and its mirrors), is a word that most people have never heard of, and because it appears to be added purely as a link to encourage people to use the word (and so is POV). jguk 05:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is also POV in omitting the adjective as it can be construed to imply that a transsexual woman is not a woman. Is the term "non-transsexual" ok with you? Dysprosia 08:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Uh, eh, what is POV supposed to mean here? Cisgender is the opposite of transgender, and funny, but when I searched Google for cisgender or cis-gender, I got 690 hits. It is also used widely in newer literature, so how can ot be POV? And of course Dysprosia is right in that there needs to be something indicating that the woman is not a transwoman, because, obviously, saying plainly "woman" clearly implies that transwomen are not women. And that is clearly POV. I do disagree with "non-transsexual" though, because non-transsexual can mean a lot of things, including all non-transsexual transgendered women, which is clearly not meant, either. Sorry, "cisgendered" is the right word, and if jguk never heard of it, that does not make it POV. I'll revert, therefore, and will link "cisgender". I'd appreciate a constructive debate, if necessary, and not one that does not bother with any arguments except "I am too stupid to use Google". -- AlexR 13:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll still revert as it is an unusual word and few people have heard of it. Your 690 hits on google double-count a lot of websites and include all the wikipedia mirrors. And personally I'd say any word that has only unique 690 hits in google (ie more than we have here) should not be in an article - an alternative construction should be found that will be generally understood. After all, this is a list of transgendered people - not a campaign to get the word cisgendered accepted. Since (1) it would look silly to move to non-transsexual, non-transgendered woman, or an actress who was born a woman etc. etc.; (2) the person in the list is the fictional character and not the actress; the fact that the character is portrayed by a woman who was born as such probably belongs in Hayley Cropper rather than this article. I have therefore deleted the whole sentence. jguk 18:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to say that just because something isn't well known, by you and according to google, it is not encylopedic or non-NPOV. If an encyclopedia included only what you already know, what would be its purpose? Hyacinth 18:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hang on, I'm not saying get rid of the article cisgendered, nor was I saying that (or any other word) is non-encyclopaedic. I'm saying the main body of an article should use language that is easily understood, and that in the main means using words that are in common usage. Anyroad, I've deleted the whole sentence now, let's call it a day there. Coronation Street's just starting and I don't want to miss it:) jguk 18:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me if I revert again. This is a list of transgendered people, and it can therefore be assumed that the readers either already do know something about transgender, in which case chances are quite high that they understand "cisgender", or want to learn about ir, in which case using the one existing proper word makes a lot of sense. Also, Hyacinth is perfectly right - understandable is one thing, but presenting false information or no information at all seems to defy the intention of an encycloedia to me. And no, until you stop to removing information, we will not call it a day. -- AlexR 21:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We dont have to restrict ourselves to basic language. We aim to present an encyclopedia here - we should use whatever language we can in order to make our point. Cisgendered is linked, and so there should be no problem. Dysprosia 02:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And what is your point? The info we are arguing about is irrelevant - the transsexual is the character, why comment at all about the actress, let alone use irregularly formed neologisms to describe her? Nor do I accept that a list of transgendered people will only be read (or should only be read) by people who are 'in' with transsexual jargon, or who want to know a lot about transgender issues - I came to this page by accident, for instance, and as Hyacinth noted, people come to encyclopaedias to learn what they do not know. As a compromise, I wouldn't revert if you added 'played by Julie Hesmondhalgh, and then anyone interested in her could find out about her. Finally, I note that there are (quite properly) links to lists of transgendered issues at the bottom, so those who are interested in them can find out more there. jguk 05:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is that in response to my comment? Please indent properly to reflect this. Regardless of whether the information is relevant or not, you had made the point that the use of the term "cisgendered" would not be easily understood, and I was mentioning that we don't necessarily have a responsibility to use "basic" terms when more possibly accurate terms exist also. Dysprosia 05:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The information is not irrelevant, on the contrary. Usually, until now, transwomen are played by cismen on screen. Having one played by a woman is definitely a step forward in accepting the gender of transgender people. I might also add that I'll go for an RFC, and if we don't get comments (these subjects tend to make many paople uncomfortable, or at least silent) I guess mediation is the only way out. I sincerely doubt that you want to go there, since you have no point to make. -- AlexR 15:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I personally do see jguk's point: cisgendered IS a fairly newly coined term and not in wide use. This does hurt the readability of the article. However, there are points in the other direction. As I understand it, the term was coined precisely because there was no previously existing word for the concept. It has no exact synonyms with wider use. If it were to be replaced, it would have to be replaced with a (possibly rather long and awkward) phrase, not a single word. We use technical terms within an encyclopedia where they are necessary, and this seems that it may be one. In Wikipedia, this is made easier because the word can be made a link to its own definition, so anyone unsure of it can find out. —Morven 17:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
For purposes of the readability, indeed, intelligibility, of this article, it is apparently necessary to refer to surgically altered men and women as women and men respectively and therefore it is probably necessary to use some term such as cisgendered to refer to members of the vast unaltered majority. If cisgender is to be used, however, it should be explained, briefly, in this article. I believe it would be best to provide a glossary of terms else we all go mad trying to figure out just exactly what is being discussed here. I can't quite remember which ones are transwomen and I certainly don't have the ability to parse cismen, etc. without assistance. Ortolan88 22:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... there are a few problems with what you write:
One is surgically altered men and women. Now what is that supposed to mean? Sounds like any people who had some kind of plastic surgery, the mayority of whom would not be transgender, while not all trans-people had it, either. So while I assume that you mean transpeople, surgery does not have much to do with being transgender. Most (but not all) transsexual people have some kind of gender reassignement surgery, and many, but far from all non-transsexual transgender people (and many intersex people, many of those against their will), but it seems to be highly useless as a definition.
We can not explain each and every word that somebody might not understand, certainly not in a list. That is what links are for, especially when the definition can be infered from the context. That is the case here. The List of transgender-related topics, which is equally linked, or the categories, can be used as a glossary, too. The terms are often a bit too complicated for a short glossary, too.
As to remembering which are "transwomen" and which are "transmen", it seems to me (not just in this case) rather strange that it should be hard to remember. These words are (also) used as self-descriptions. Now, a person who feels that she is a women would hardly use "man" in any form to describe herself, now, would she? Therefore, transwomen are obviously those women who identify as women; and since we are talking about transpeople, has not been born in a female body. Same of course for transmen. Once you think about it for a few seconds, I don't think you have that "Can't remember"-problem any longer.
As for cis and trans - well, if your ever learned Latin, this pair of prefixes should be familiar. If you ever learned chemistry, it should be familiar, too. If neither, there are more than enough words using the trans- as a prefix or part of the word to remember: Transport: Moving from one place to another, or Transcendence: experiences that are beyond the human realm of understanding, or Transcontinental: That extends or passes across a continent; also, of or pertaining to the farther side of a continent. Cis-, on this side of is, in English, not much in use any more - however, it is a pair, and if you know one, you know the other.
Hope that helped, -- AlexR 11:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why not read what I said? I was arguing against those who were trying to keep cisgender out of the article. It's not a question of making it clear to me, it's a question of a clear article, and you can't have a clear article if you require readers to keep Caesar's Commentaries and Skeate's Dictionary of English Etymology in mind as they read.
First, you yourself made those remarks that required clarification, and second, the Wikipedia does not require its readers to keep anything else at hand, ir requires at most a klick of a mouse. And an article is perfectly clear if that is all that it takes to get the information needed. -- AlexR 16:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
When you're talking about a subject that is, if you don't know it, pretty damn arcane to the average reader, you do have to explain every word. The average common reader, even if schooled in Latin and chemistry, is going to come grinding to a halt when they encounter cisman or transwoman. Sorry. In some more enlightened future, that might not be so, but the way to get to that enlightened future is to write clear encyclopedia articles now. An encyclopedia is supposed to explain things, such as the many unfamiliar categories in this list. Ortolan88 15:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I said - the word is linked, and that is all the clarification that is needed. This is a list and it would change from a list to something pretty illegible and useless if every word somebody might not understand would be explained on this page. Methinks the concept of the Wikipedia is as arcane to you as is the concept of transgender ... -- AlexR 16:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the part about No personal attacks and if you'll have a look at my user page or my contributions you'll find that I'm moderately familiar with how Wikipedia works. Dropping out now, I've led you to water, but I can't make you drink. If you don't think the article should make things clear, there's apparently no way to convince you that it should. Ortolan88 16:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In fact the whole article is a bit of a nonsense in its use of vocabulary. The words 'woman' (and 'man') are used throughout - presumably to mean someone who was born as a woman (or man) unless the context requires otherwise - yet exception was taken when the word woman was used of Julie Hesmondhalgh. The list, in general, does not tell you in what way any individual was transgendered, so why argue particularly for just one character?
Excuse me? Have you read the article? "Woman" is used several times to describe transwomen, in other words, women who were not born with the body to match. Same with man. Where "woman" is used to describe the physical sex, it is clear from the context. (As in Billy Tipton, woman who lived as a male jazz musician). So obviously, it is necessary to state that in this case a cisgender woman is meant. Not to mention that calling somebody "cisgendered" is hardly a way to describe how that person is transgendered. The two are mutually exclusive, and there is only one way to be cisgendered. Either you are or you are not. Sorry, but your constant removal, each time with a new non-argument, starts to resemble vandalism. -- AlexR 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Finally, I see from your user page and contributions list, AlexR, that transgender issues are clearly very important to you. This is a list people can stumble on who have no particular great interest in transgender issues - but maybe want to know a little about them. Do not put them off with jargon and unusual words or phraseology! Otherwise they will not follow all the links, will not read the articles you and others have contributed and go and find a part of wikipedia they can understand. Have an article here that is easily intelligible and welcoming, and many will follow the links and will read on. jguk 18:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it will turn you of, but I sincerly doubt that using a rare word in any article, one which furthermore is linked, so it takes one mouseclick to check what it means, will turn of many readers. Not to mention that people come to encyclopedias to learn something, so to be "turned off"; by an unfamiliar (and linked) word seems to be a bit counterproductive.
BTW, can you give me anything resembling an argument why you so much insist on having that sentence taken out of this list? What is ailing you? -- AlexR 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My argument is listed above. As far as what is ailing me - it's in the title of this talk discussion. It's making the article intelligible. I can't understand why you're attached to the word (unless you are one of those campaigning for it to have a wider circulation - in which case, it would be POV to have it). Use another word/phrasing and I'll go away. Alternatively, follow Ortolan's suggestion and offer a brief lead-in or definition of the word in this article. Persist in reinserting a generally unintelligible word without further explanation in this article, and I'll stay until a reasonable formulation is adopted. jguk 19:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unclear points in the article

AlexR argues above that it is necessary to note that Hayley Cropper is played by a cisgendered woman (ie a woman who was born female and is not transgendered). I have gone through the article noting other various ambiguities and inconsistencies. Please feel free to amend the article to deal with these points.

Living individuals Nadia Almada - doesn’t say male to female transsexual; April Ashley, doesn’t say male to female transsexual; Mianne Bagger, golfer, doesn’t say male to female transsexual (the term ‘transsexual woman’ itself is unclear. She would view herself as a woman. Others, including the law, in many territories around the world would still recognise her as a man; Georgina Beyer, New Zealands doesn’t say male to female transsexual; Kate Bornstein, doesn’t say male to female transsexual; Sara Davis Buechner does not say why this person is transgendered; Patrick Califia, does not say why this person is transgendered; Wendy Carlos, does not say male to female transsexual; Lynn Conway, does not say male to female transsexual; Caroline Cossey, does not say male to female transsexual; Jayne County, does not say why this person is transgendered; Candy Darling, does not say why this person is transgendered; Michelle Dumaresq, does not say male to female transsexual; Jackie Enx, does not say male to female transsexual; Bulent Ersoy, Turkish male to female?; Leslie Feinberg, does not say why this person is transgendered; Lauren Harries, does not say male to female transsexual; Harisu, whilst it implies this person is a male to female transsexual - it is unclear; Mary Ann Horton, does not say why this person is transgendered; Dana International, does not say why this person is transgendered; Eddie Izzard, does not say that Eddie Izzard is a man who was born a man; Kamikawa Aya, does not say why this person is transgendered; Taff al-Khalifa, is it female to male here, or is this inconsistent with the phrasing used elsewhere in the article?; Jennifer Jane Leitham, male to female?; Angela Morley, male to female?; Hedda Lettuce, man or woman?; Jan Morris, male to female? Or female to male?; Dee Palmer, male to female?; Grayson Perry, does not make clear that Grayson was born male; Dr. Renee Richards, male to female?; Joan Roughgarden, does not say why this person is transgendered; Jason Saffer, man or woman?; Melissa Sklarz, does not say why this person is transgendered; Sandy Stone, does not say why this person is transgendered; Margaret Stumpp, male to female?; Terre Thaemlitz, does not say why this person is transgendered; Pussy Tourette, male or female?;


2 20th and 21st century individuals. Gwen Araujo, male to female or female to male? The term ‘transsexual girl’ is ambiguous as to which; Danielle Bunten Berry, does not say why this person is transgendered; Bella Evangelista, man or woman?; Tyra Hunter, the term ’transsexual woman’ is ambiguous - male to female TS, or female to male?; Marsha P Johnson, does not say why this person is transgendered; Christine Jorgensen, male to female?; Glen Milstead, man or woman?; Sylvia Rivera, does not say why this person is transgendered; Brandon Teena, male to female or female to male? The term ‘transsexual boy’ is ambiguous as to which; Billy Tipton, uses ’woman’ unqualified to mean someone born as a woman; Ed Wood, Jr., man or woman?


3 Earlier historical or mythological individuals

Achilles, does not specify that Achilles is male; Chevalier d'Eon does not say why this person is transgendered; Christina of Sweden does not say why this person is transgendered; Roman Emperor Elagabalus does not say why this person is transgendered; Heracles, does not specify that Heracles was male; Deborah Sampson, 18th century uses the word ‘woman’ unqualified to mean a someone born as a woman; Hannah Snell, 18th century uses the word ‘woman’ unqualified to mean a someone born as a woman;


4 Fictional individuals Azure C., male to female? Is the person who plays her (assuming a her) a man or woman, etc.?; Hayley Cropper, male to female? Is the person who plays her (assuming a her) a man or woman, etc.? jguk 19:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to address some points here. Note that there is preexisting Wikipedia guidelines and convention to use self-identification (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Identity, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality/Terminology, Wikipedia:Style_guide#Identity)

the term ‘transsexual woman’ itself is unclear

It is quite clear, since it has been linked, and the fact that the person has a "female" name is indication enough that the person is a woman, or likewise for men, and attempting to explain too much goes beyond the scope of the article, becomes cumbersome, and doesn't quite achieve neutrality. Using "transsexual woman" is accurate and respects self-identification.

man or woman?

Certain forms of transgender behaviour mean that the person does not view themselves as being either! One should not attempt to "explain" their birth sex, due to the self-identification guidelines above. Dysprosia 22:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I admit that to avoid listing out all possibilities of how a person may be described I used language in that list which would be considered imprecise by those who study and participate in discussions on transgender issues. I don't agree that the term 'transsexual woman' is clear because it is linked - there is no reason for a casual reader to believe it has a technical meaning here - particularly as the lead in to the article essentially says 'everything's all been thrown in on this list'. This could be easily remedied by improving the lead in. Also for clarity, the 'self-identification guidelines' (or at least their affect on this article) should also be described in the lead in.

You see, my point is that an article should be clearly understandable. You shouldn't have to click lots of links, have a dictionary or wikipedia's style policies open to understand it. That doesn't mean technical words should never be used, but it does mean they properly introduced.

You're right, too much information would clutter the article. (Which is why I deleted a small amount of the clutter that I had, unfortunately, added myself:) ) There should be enough to tell the casual reader who the person is and to encourage them to click on some of the names to read their own detailed articles.

Lastly, I don't think saying someone having a 'female' name is indication enough - whilst some names are distinctly 'male' or 'female', some are unclear, particularly to an international audience. We should not assume that people can recognise someone's sex from their name. jguk 23:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also for clarity, the 'self-identification guidelines' (or at least their affect on this article) should also be described in the lead in.
No, they shouldn't. It's a list of transgendered people, not a discussion on the language we use to describe them.
You see, my point is that an article should be clearly understandable.
This, by no means, is achievable or even desirable in many circumstances. If this were the case, each and every mathematics related article would be prefixed by a lengthy (and redundant) discussion of the supporting theory before one would even get to the subject matter! This article is similar - a discussion and explanation of the language would detract from the actual subject matter.
I don't think saying someone having a 'female' name is indication enough
I never said that it would - with the link to transsexual man or transsexual woman or transgender, this should provide enough background information to get an understanding as to why they are listed on this page. Dysprosia 01:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between what are clearly technical articles and articles that are not. When reading about something technical - be it a science or humanity subject, the reader accepts that more complicated terms are necessary. This is not true of non-technical articles such as this. When I've got time, I'll show you what I mean. I don't think it would mean anything more than rewriting the lead in and keeping it of the same length. jguk 06:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a quick go at it, though I still maintain there is little need for too much "explanation". Dysprosia 07:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree not too much, but enough for a casual reader to be able to understand the article. jguk 07:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just seen your final tweak to the lead in, Dysprosia. All seems ok, and it looks much better now the reader is warned that words are used in a technical meaning rather than how a reader unfamiliar with transgender issues may normally understand them. Your phrasing to make it clear we are using the terminology the individual themselves uses is better than mine too. Thanks. jguk 09:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I should have added that I like the way the lead in is now phrased to encourage readers to look at the linked articles (why is TS different from TM/TW? what does TM or TW mean? etc. are all questions that may occur to a reader, who can now easily find the answer).jguk 09:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I cannot quite understand the latest edits. The first paragraph seems to imply that "transmen and transwomen" are distictively different from "genderqueer people, cross-dressers, notable drag queens and drag kings, transvestic fetishists, intersexuals who identify as transgender, and others" which is ridiculous and obviously false. Also, it is really news to me that transvestic fetishists are among transgender people. Usually they are not counted as such. Sorry, but this messes it up completely.

Sorry about that, your wording is better. I had tried to preserve the terms in the version before my edit, and wasn't thinking about that. Dysprosia 12:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And sorry, but for Hayley Cropper, the claim that "Unusually for a fictional portrayal of a transsexual, the character is played by an actress who is not herself transgendered." is also false. Most transwomen I saw portrayed in movies were played plainly by men, and very rarely by other transwomen. -- AlexR 12:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the original statement itself is unclear. I take it to mean that it's unusual for an MTF transwoman to be played by a woman who is not transsexual. If this is what the statement means, it is incorrect. I'm thinking of several examples: a TS character who appeared on Chicago Hope, played by Mia Sara; in the movie of Jan Morris' life, she is played by Vanessa Redgrave; a recurring TS character on "Ally McBeal" was played by a female; one of the characters in Satree Lex was played by a female; Myra Breckenridge was played by Raquel Welch; the TS character in "Tales of the City" was played by Olympia Dukakis; and there are many more.
If my interpretation of the original statement is correct, then aren't we in agreement? If so, why did you revert my change of an erroneous statement? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say...? Jiawen 10:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dubious claims about clearly non-transgenderd people

This article lists a whole bunch of people whos transgender status is clearly wrong and others for whom it is highly speculative. This isn't a list of people who "kinda, sorta, there's a small chance, maybe" are transgender.

The ones who cross-dressed for some nefarious/deceptive purpose and not as a life style choice clearly can not be classified as transgender and should be removed from the article completely. The fact that mythological figures such as Achilles were even added in the first place says a lot about the POV pushing of the people who supported it. The only mythological one who might be considered transgenderes is Guan Yin. The real life figures who did it to disguise themselves to avoid something (e.g. military service) or even to get into something where women are discriminated against. They did it for deceptive purposes as well, so they can't really be considered transgendered.

The pope one is laughable and definitely should be removed. The one about Joan of Arc is based exclusively on an accustion from a unreliable source. If they accused her of being a witch, should we have included her in a list of witches too? Also, I'd like to see an authoritative source showing that she was even accused of it as it seems that it's most Wikipedia ripped sites and LGBT websites that site that as fact.

And what are "transvestite tendencies" in reference to Ed Wood? You need to start citing sources or I'm just going to start deleting them. That goes mainly for the historical and mythological figurse section.

Maxwell Klinger wasn't even a real transvestite, he only did that so he'd get a section 8 and get kicked out of the army. Anyone who watched the show knows he would try all kinds of crazy stuff to get kicked out under the guise of being mentally ill. This phrase describing the character is also very odd: "Although a transvestite, he loudly denied any charges of homosexuality." What's the association between the two?

Also, it appears they're using a warped definition of transgender here. I've never heard a definition that would automatically include cross-dressers as if that automatically means they identify with the opposite gender rather than just enjoying the clothes. I'm sorry, but this overly broad and incorrect definition of transgender is obviously an attempt just to make the list as long as possible.

Nathan J. Yoder 28 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)

    • Within 50 minutes of making those comments the article was changed by a so called "center" (which had similar edits to an anonymous AOL user that changed the articles in *exactly* the same fashion). It is my opinion that the "Center" and that user are one on the same person. It is too coincidental not to dismiss. Your right wing POV religious rhetoric is noted. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 04:35 (UTC)
      • While I generally agree with what JamesBurns said, Njyoder's post highlights two things - a) that we need to be citing sources in cases where it isn't necessarily patently obvious, and b) that we should probably give this list a bit of thorough checking - the Klinger mention is damned good point. Ambi 29 June 2005 05:54 (UTC)
        • Njyoder pronounces:You need to start citing sources or I'm just going to start deleting them. According to a recent admin decision on Njyoder, he is not allowed to edit gender related articles. My point is, this so-called "Center" refuses to discuss any of its edits and simply does what it pleases. It doesnt it respond on its Talk page. As far as I'm aware there is no connection (yet), between these edits and Nyjoder but it is nonetheless extremely suspicious given the fact that this "Center" and Nyjoder did not become involved with this page until after a request for page protection was made by another editor. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 10:38 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? There is no admin decision against me to not edit gender articles. I'm full allowed to edit any and all articles. Not only are you engaging in slanderous accusations, you're telling flat out lies. I'd say spreading flat out lies which have absolutely not basis in reality against other members is a violation of several Wikipedia policies, so you better be VERY careful about what you say. I strongly suggest that you retract your slanderous accusation before you further discredit yourself.Why the heck would I make changes under an alternate account when I have the full capability of doing it under this account?

Also, where have I inserted any kind of right wing or religious views here? Nothing I've said has anything to do with religion nor does it have anything to do with politics. My points are extremely valid and you only rejected them because of your ridiculous personal biases and need to push your POV. Not only are transvestites not necessarily transgendered, there are quite a few people on this list who are clearly NOT transvestites even using the description given in the article itself. I have to question how anyone thought it was a good idea to add them.

I should also note that you're being hypocritical here, you're reverting a change on the basis that it hasn't been discussed, when you yourself refuse to discuss it! I'd be very interested to know why a) non-transgendered people should be included on a list of transgendered ones and b) why transvestite is used as automatic criteria for seeing if someone is transgendered, even though there is nothing in the definition that indicates that.

Frankly, this kind of behavior is appalling. The supposedly open minded LGBT Wikipedian cliques criticize "right wing religious" people (and by right-wing religious that means anyone who doesn't agree with their extremist views) is actually one of the most close-minded groups on wikipedia, with the least likely chance of actually discussing things (as evidenced here) and least likely to consider others views. Nathan J. Yoder 29 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

I know a number of transgendered people, both pre-op and post-op. None of them consider transvestites to be transgendered. Hayford Peirce 29 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)
That may be the case - it is, however, utterly irrelevant. You might wish to compare the articles on transgender and transvestism. "Transvestite" has so many different and often contradicting definitions that it has become a pretty meaningless term; nevertheless, several of those definitions would make the people so defined transgender. That "Transvestite" is still both a "What we are not" and an insult in many trans*-communities does not change any definitions. -- AlexR 29 June 2005 23:57 (UTC)

Nathan doesn't seem to be aware of the gender article editing prohibition. Weird. I'm not sure it's in force yet, but he should still KNOW about it, it's coming into force any moment now. Anyway, Nathan, you can't very well not know about about your personal attack injunction. I can't even COUNT the personal attacks you make above. I'm blocking you for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 30 June 2005 00:13 (UTC)

    • I'm very surprised Nathan didnt know. There has been an RBA on him for some weeks. The decision about editing gender articles was from this motion: Njyoder banned from gender and sex related articles 1) User:Njyoder is banned for one year from editing articles related to gender or sexuality. The motion was carried 5 votes for, none against, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Njyoder/Proposed_decision. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:17 (UTC)
The case hasn't been formally closed yet (although a sufficient number of arbitrators have voted to close), so presumably the prohibition isn't in force yet. OTOH it's going to be, as soon as an arb takes the time to close—as I say above, "any moment now"—so it's hardly a "WTF are you talking about?". Nathan, if you're unaware of the proposed decision that James Burns links to (seriously..?), I recommend it to your attention, it's quite interesting. Note the Talk page, too. Bishonen | talk 30 June 2005 07:21 (UTC)

Brandon Teena

Did Brandon Teena consider himself 'transsexual'? Or 'transgender'? Was his stated position ever really that clear before he was murdered? And by whose account? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CKF1997 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not know whether he ever did state anything of the kind, although I am fairly certain of it. However, given the circumstances of his life, we can at least assume that he was transgender. Whether he considered himself transsexual I cannot tell, but given that transsexual is just a sub-definition of transgender, it hardly matters. -- AlexR 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronouns

We have been having a small debate at the Leslie Cochran page, and I thought some people on this talk page might have more experience with the issues at hand. What pronouns are typically used in articles for transgendered people- their birth/physical gender, or their preferred one? Or is this just a highly individual decision? Thanks in advance for your help. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler - Tales of the City

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

The inclusion of Anna Madrigal gives away a major plot detail that is not revealed until well in to the story, and is part of a puzzle unfolding. It's a trashy series of books, but still, coming across this information would spoil the experience of reading it to some extent (especially the revelation of the anagram). I suggest she is removed from the list. If she is kept, at least the "mrs." should be removed from her name (no one else has a title!). ntennis 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

separate lists - better scope and definition

Transgender is a term without a precise definition. It is a term that ought to be abandoned IMO because of its lack of scope and precise definition.

Also I believe there should be separate, more specific lists of people in various categories. For example, if afflicted women are 'transgendered' before vaginoplasty are they 'transgendered' after vaginoplasty? Isn't the point that a woman who experiences 'gender dysphoria', i.e. transsexual dysphoria before vaginoplasty no longer has the condition after vaginoplasty?

Shouldn't women who have had vaginoplasties to cure 'gender dysphoria' have a list of their own, to clearly distinguish them from "transvestites", "crossdressers", "drag queens", "drag kings" and so on with they are not?

If the wikipedia is going to demonstrate high standards, shouldn't those standards begin with forging better and clearer language to define and categorize the conditions described in this note?

The words transsexual and transgender aren't much different from the words leper and leprosy it seems, not just in terms of stigma but also in the manner that they are used in a way the turns the afflicted INTO their condition. We don’t call HIV sufferers HIVsuals or HIV HIVism. For example, there are few other medical conditions wherein the person is referred to by their disease. Diabetes and diabetic is one of few such terms that come to mind. We don't call cancer sufferers cancerists or neoplastuals. Heart disease suffers are not called cardiosuals, heartattackists, heartattacksuals, heartfailureists, or transplantuals. Coming full circle, what was once called leprosy is now called Hanson's Disease. Hanson’s Disease is now curable with antibiotics and no longer needs to generate the fear that spawned the term leper two millennia ago. The term leper has evolved to refer not to someone with Hanson's Disease, but to describe anyone who is a social outcast. Regardless of negative connotations isn't time we called so called 'gender dysphoria' something like Jorgensen's Syndrome, and call those cured of it women who are Jorgensen's Syndrome survivors? Terms like transsexual are nearly completely uninformative because they give no information about the status of someone’s having been cured of the disease. Transgender is largely a term popularized by puritanical people, in our Judeo-Christian oppressed culture who are afraid of any word with the term sex within it.

These are social, political, medical and practical issues that our culture needs to start dealing with immediately. Women like Lynn Conway are women Jorgensen's Syndrome survivors. If Lynn Conway was a transsexual before her vaginoplasty over thirty (30) years ago, she certainly isn't transsexual anymore. Conversely, if someone is transsexual after having been transsexed, how can they be either transsexual or transsexed before the surgery?

Certainly this linguistic issue made exceed the scope of these lists, but they are pertinent here and in every article where men (FTM) and women (MTF) Jorgensen's Syndrome survivors are the subject of relevant topics.

Disinformation

I understand that this has been repeatedly raised before, but nothing seems to have been done about it.

This article, as written, is a complete farce. Worse than being useless, it might be construed as "disinformation." By lumping together a half dozen different catagories under one name, it promotes confusion and renders the term "transgendered" meaningless. It is a random list of people who have, for various time periods, and for quite disparate reasons, behaved in some manner that, in our time and culture, is more usually associated with the other sex.

This list is an inane mish-mash.

  • Thor once wore women's clothes as a disguise.
  • Milton Berle got into drag to get laughs.
  • James Barry petended to be a man for job opportunities.
  • Ed Wood was a transvestite.
  • Harvey Fierstein is a homosexual.
  • Christine Jorgensen was a transsexual.

It is ridiculous to even list the first two. One wonders how Jeanne D'Arc escaped notice. Perhaps she will soon appear. After all, she didn't go into battle wearing a frilly dress and riding sidesaddle. Had this been written 75 years ago, would any woman who ever wore slacks have made the list?

In an earlier exchange Martin wrote,

Some people use transgender as a catch-all term for crossing of gender boundaries. Some people use transgender to specifically refer to be people between genders. Thus the term has two meanings. Neither meaning is "incorrect".

This is pure garbage. Just because "some people" misuse a term, that does not give their misuse legitimacy. That is rampant "Humpty-Dumptyism," where words mean whatever the speaker idiosyncratically decides they mean.

Conflating transsexuals, transvestites, hermaphrodites, homosexuals (not specified, but listed), mixing them together and adding in people wearing disguises or costumes, does a real disservice. This article should be replaced with a disambiguation page pointing to the individual category lists. Thank you. B00P 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_transgender_people_Archive_01_d64b.html"