Talk:Shemale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shemale article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2005



Contents

[edit] Kathoey images

Kappa - please explain your view of how those images are illustrative of this article. I don't see how these photos of alleged Kathoey (whose actual genital/surgical status is unclear) are illustrative. In my opinion, and in other authors' opinions expressed in prior removals, they aren't useful here. They can serve a purpose on an article about Kathoey, but not this one. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Alright, but I think I should be nagging you to cite a source that says "shemale" exludes people who have had the operation. Kappa 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That's the premise of the very first paragraph of the article. (which I, incidentally, did not write). It also happens to be my own understanding of the term. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] diagram needed

I believe this of a couple articles that seem similar to me need a diagram explaining them. I will draw one myself if everyone else agrees not to revert it and agrees on the specifications. If not, then I won't waste several hours making something to let it get ruined. MartrtinS 11:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary, and would not add to the encyclopedic nature of the article. Dysprosia 12:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't waste your time. It's patently not needed for this article. What else you do with your drawings is up to you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that there are some male-to-female transexuals who actually prefer to keep their penis, rather than have the operation, and class themselves as non-op rather than pre-op?
By the way, I can see how "shemale" could be turned into an insult, but if I've ever written or said that word I've thought of it in an affectionate way. I once saw a black and white calender of transexuals posing nude, some of whom were absolutely gorgeous - easily as feminine as any "genetic" woman I've ever seen. From my point of view, the only down-side to gay sex is that men are just unattractive. For me, a gorgeous "shemale" would be the perfect partner, physically speaking - the fun aspect of "gay" sex combined with the beautiful femininity of a woman. Sadly, I've never even met a male->female transexual, let alone a "non-op". :( -Neural 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It is true that some transsexuals live as "pre-op" or "non-op" reffering to a descision or inability to have [Sexual Reassignment Surgery]. There are a variety of reasons for this, inclusing finances, physical health, and dissatid=sfaction with the surgery itself (a large problem for female-to-male transexuals).
This is not, however, to be confused with shemales, who are transgenderists. Shemales desire to have aspects of both male and female. THey are often exploited in teh pornographic industry because of this. Some Transsexuals "masquerade"as transgenderists during transition, however due to the nature of hormone treatment they are unable to "perform" for long. Lwollert 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That's just the usual dynamic of political correctness. You might think it's endeering to call somone in a wheelchair "wheelie", but chances are they're going to think you're a prick for it unless you're really close friends and its been established that jokes like that are okay. Most transwoman don't want don't want to be "othered" for being trans. They just want to be normal women, and furthermore, their sexlife is their own business. The term shemale is almost always used within the context of sexuality and erotically, in most cases it's actually used withing the sex industry which is often very exploitative and and degrading to transpeople. And not just in the ways that porn and prostitute are said to exploit and degrade women in general, but in the outright disrespect shown to transpeople and how they identify. First of all for using offensive terms like "shemale" and "ladyboy", but also for treating us like some sort of sexual novelty act; neither male nor female but some strange hybrid ideal for other people to objectify and throw their unwanted horniness at. Being trans is not about sex. Frankly, our sex lives are private matters. That people think of us through the lense of nude calenders and the ideal fuck is really just kind of aggravating. What I'm like in bed is really one of the least important things about me. I have a personality and life outside my body afterall. That as soon as you let people know you're trans suddenly all they care about is sex is just such a piss off. Or even that they'd put sex first. Furthermore, whether they're pre- post- or non-op, transsexual women want to be seen unambiguously as women. Not men, not males and not boys. Refering to transwomen with any word you'd use to refer to a man, a male or a boy is completely disrespectful, probably the most desrespectful things you can call a transwoman. Calling a transwoman a "man" is like calling a person of African descent a "nigger". Putting "she" or "lady" in front of it doesn't help.74.104.127.146 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs citation

Removed this 'doubly uncited' sentence pending discussion/citation:

"Shemale" is also a term used in online computer games to refer to male players playing as female characters, [citation needed] or to a female transvestite who looks like a man but is known to be a woman. [citation needed]

Please discuss. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs review

The definition put forth in this page needs reviewing.
True "Shemales" are not transsexuals; they are transgenderists, who desie to have aspects of both sexes. typically this is through surgical rather than hormonal modification of one's secondary sexual characteristics. These people do not wish to fully change their anatomical sex.
There does, however, need to be a section in this which refers to the confusion between transgenderists and transsexuals. Lwollert 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, very very few transwoman identify themselves as "shemales"; probably only a minority working within the sex industry itself. Second, it is at best debateable to claim that transwoman wishing to retain their original genitalia are not really transsexuals as most self-identify as "non-operative transsexuals". Certain segments of the pre-op and post-op transpeople would vehemently deny that "non-op transpeople" are transpeople at all (mostly amongst transwomen as opting out of surgery is fairly normal for transguys anyway due to the current limitation on surgery) but it's at best a contentious issue. Or maybe it's just a petty squabble of no concrete importance. In any case, violate neutral point of view standards to represent either side as the "authentic" one.74.104.127.146 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I would challenge you to find a transwoman who genuinely identifies as "shemale." In the sex trade it's expected that transwomen advertise themselves as "shemales" so we may be seeing the results of that here. As for non-operative transsexuals not being true transsexuals, my personal experience indicates that it's a squabble amongst the "experts" rather than among the transgendered people themselves. People who are themselves transsexual generally understand that one's gender has little to do with one's genitalia and that the choice to operate or not is more about aesthetics and functionality than identity. Samantha D 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's important to emphasise the pejorative nature of this term. The article gives the impression that it's a valid description for a group of people, when the reality in my experience is that it's simply an insulting term used by the porn industry. I'm for removing the page altogether. If that's not possible, lets use the layout of the nigger and faggot pages as the basis for this one, and make it clear that this is an abusive, not inclusive, and certainly not descriptive term. Suzyj 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Suzyj has hit upon a good idea and a good point. As suzyj points out, Shemale is not generally a descriptive term, it is a pejorative one. Would anyone object to an insert to the begining of the article that reads similarly to the oppening of nigger and faggot? Lwollert 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the entire article needs to be almost completelly redone as to emphisize the pejorative nature of the word. However, I wouldn't object and in fact I'll go add it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samantha D (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Where's the NPOV?

I'm not involved in pornography, and I have lived full-time as a woman (successfully) for five years now. However, I would consider myself a shemale. I feel the tone of this article is derogatory toward people who identify with the term, and it doesn't include alternate points of view.

I think that the main reason "shemale" is sexualized rather than a simple category is because society at large does not recognize the validity of other-gendered people. For me, saying shemale is a lot easier and more accurate than saying "non-operative transsexual". It's also less offensive: my life should not be defined around an genital mutilation I have no intent of undergoing, since I disagree that spending thousands of dollars on a hidden medical procedure would make me any more a "real woman".

In short, there's a lack of language available to express the traits of someone who is a woman socially by choice, but retains male genitalia, even though this is an increasingly common phenomenon. I think the term is fine.

--65.185.34.168 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay - perhaps this article has gone too far the other way; however, the common term for Transwomen who do not have GRS is a "Non-Op" Transsexual or "Non-Op" Transwoman. As the article states,
<quote>"Many transwomen are offended by this term beacause..."</quote>
The idea is to report common useage, and not personal experience, wherever possible. I applaud the above user for owning the term shemale, and accepting it, but many (and probably the majority) of transwomen feel it is a slur, a perjorative term, and used to reinforce the sentiment that transwomen are "Men acting like Women" as opposed to "Women who have had to act like Men". Lwollert 10:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with many of your points. However, the first paragraph states succinctly: "Shemale is a slur used against transgender women." There is no citation to back this up. As far as I can determine, shemale is not commonly used as a slur. It is most commonly used in pornography (just do a websearch for it), and many transwomen are simply offended by being associated with pornography. This doesn't mean that people commonly insult transwomen by calling us "shemales". In fact, most transwomen would be equally offended to be called "man", but the article on "man" certainly doesn't begin with, "Man is a slur used against transgender women". Shemale should begin with something like, "Shemale is a term used predominantly in the sex industry to refer to actors who appear female but have male genitalia. Some transgender women consider the term offensive." Then go on to explain this is considered offensive partly because of its use in the sex industry, and partly because pre-operative transsexuals don't want to be identified with their original sex. I could attempt an edit myself, but I'd rather discuss it here first than start an editing war.
In summary, I really don't think that people use "shemale" like they use "nigger" or "faggot". It isn't a slur used against transsexual women; it's a term used in pornography that offends SOME transsexual women who find the association distasteful.--65.185.34.168 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the most common usage is in reference to people portrayed in pornography. As I understand the argument, 65.185.34.168 is saying that 'shemale' is not a slur because it is used mostly in the porn industry. I would argue that 'whore' is still a slur, even though it is commonly used to refer to a prostitute from within the sex industry. An industry's use of a term is far from qualification for that term to be accepted. In medical terms, old people are often reffered to as GOMERs, and that is widely known through the industry; it is still a perjorative term.
Certainly most people would run into the term 'shemale' in a pornography setting. That does not, however, mean that it is not still perjorative in that setting. In fact, perjorative is my preffered term for it, rather than slur; whether or not it is used specifically as a slur, it contains negative connotations. I would disagree on the point that 'shemale' is not used like nigger or faggot, however as you point out (and I point out above) that is personal experience, not validated research.
On the point of citation, please feel free to try and find a valid citation that "most" transwomen do not find shemale offensive, as you imply that by saying that only some find it offensive.
I also encourage you to look at my proposed Shemale article layout and content, and edit or discuss it there.
Cheers, Lwollert 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the article is pure opinion and unsourced as it stands. The burden of proof is on those who edit or add to the article. I've added the unsourced tag in the hopes that some reliable third-party sources can back up your claims that shemale is generally a perjorative term. --65.185.34.168 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a dictionary cite (not that one should even be required for such an obvious situation). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altered Layout

As discussed earlier, I suggest a new layout for this article, along the lines of Nigger and Faggot. I suggest the format at: User:lwollert/Shemale
Lwollert 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Taken together, I do not believe your layout is an improvement - quite the opposite - and so I've reverted your replacement of the article. We can discuss it at length if you wish, but the structure, grammar and informativeness of the original is clearly and significantly superior to your version and so I request that you don't revert it back, but instead that we try incorporating elements you find useful in your 'alternate' version. Just to be helpful, here are a few of the serious issues with your 'layout' that led me to revert:
  1. Most importantly, your 'new layout' creates the impression that the term has widespread, non-derogatory use - it does not. There may be some individuals (like the anon) who claim it is an unoffensive term - but in widespread use it is indeed a pejorative as the cite makes clear. Structuring the article in the way that you did obscures that fact unacceptably.
  2. The text of the section you title 'non-derogatory' contains considerably more text than the 'derogatry' (sic) section, and the text it contains does not relate specifically to the heading in any way. It is yet another runthru of issues more appropriate to an article on 'transgender' and not specifically related to the term 'shemale'.
  3. WP is not a dictionary, so the Davy Crockett usage (lifted from the dictionary site) is, while historically interesting, tangential at best. Conversely, there is no mention in your version of the relevant usage of the term by Janice Raymond (which, while historical, could be argued to be far more relevant).
  4. Anime and Manga (forms of animation) are similarly tangential to the issue of this term.
As it stands, I oppose your proposed version for these and other reasons I haven't yet mentioned. I applaud your goal to bring this article to a 'start-class' rating, and I welcome your opinions and further efforts - but please do not structure the article to lend credence to the mistaken view that 'shemale' has a common usage that is non-derogatory. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. I fully appreciate the feedback; However, allow me to rebut;
  1. I did not intend to make it seem that there was a widespread non-derogatory use. specifically, I started the article with the statement that it is a pejorative term, and an explanation of the derogatory connotations comes before the non-derogatory ones. Please not that it is incredibly hard to find a useful citation for either usage - at least without inadvertently referencing pornography sites.
  2. The text of "non-derogatory" is essentially the same as the current article's second paragraph. Certainly the second and third paragraphs of that section could be removed without substantial loss to the article. If you think, perhaps it could be under a different heading?
  3. Absolutely; however, as in nigger and faggot, historical useage of a term is part of understanding it; additionally, it helps us understand trends in culture, and is interesting to note that many derogatory terms had meaning once; again, idiot and cretin would be further examples of these (Cretin in particular has a very specific medical meaning - however modern usage has rendered it completely inappropriate). And in regards to the Davy Crockett quote, you'll notice I actually traced it to another source than the dictionary - "Lifted" is hardly fair.
  4. Yes; tangential, but as the reference to Shemale is in their article, it is useful to refer it back. Also, to purely put forward the "derogatory" theme without reporting other usage runs us into NPOV issues - there are other uses of the word, and this is an example of oen of them.
I fully understand your reversion; my only request is that you perhaps help me to continue to try and increase the validity and use of this current uncited, and somewhat off-topic article. I continue to have my suggestion Here and invite you to edit that to make it better. I also have the current layout saved Here. As it stands, the current article does not conform to wikipedia standards of layout or content, and runs into NPOV issues.
BTW, I agree that by far the most common usage is in a derogatory way; you need only have a look at some of the discussions above to see that - however, much of that usage is in the context of the pornography industry, and should be labeled as such. It is not a term widely used outside that industry as far as i can see. When it is used, it is hateful, derogatory, and that IS personal experience - so not able to be cited.
Looking forward to your contribution, Cheers Lwollert 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of time so I'll answer briefly for now.
  1. I have provided a plain, clear, non-pornographic citation establishing definitively that the word is derogatory (the dictionary link). This is not in reasonable doubt, despite the personal viewpoint expressed by the anon above. In addition I've got some requests in to a few professionals experienced in transgender employment issues that can help provide some independent sources to establish the 'acceptability' of the term in an employment/legal context - a widespread and non-pornographic context. If the term is indeed acceptable for use in that context, there's an argument that it is not derogatory - but indeed, I believe it is obvious that the term is clearly unacceptable to refer to a transgendered individual and the cites gained will doubtless confirm the cite I already provided.
  2. Per WP:NPOV, we oughtn't create a section called 'non-derogatory' if the non-derogatory use of the term is as marginal as you agree it is in this instance ("by far the most common usage is in a derogatory way"), lest we run afoul of the 'undue weight' requirement. Moreover, the text there doesn't belong under that heading, as it doesn't address the usage of the term. Currently it describes the physical nature of a non- or pre-operative transsexual/transgendered individual for whom the slur is ostensibly employed. As the text you placed in that section doesn't explain or exhibit a 'non-derogatory' use of the term, and the heading creates an incorrect perception that the term can be used in a non-derogatory manner, it's uninformative.
  3. I don't dispute the use of etymology in WP articles, but in this case the Crockett example adds little if anything - but the Raymond cite would be key to understanding the usage of the term to refer to transgendered individuals. If we address etymology at all, the Raymond cite is far more relevant than the Crockett cite.
Again, I'd lose your alternate version, and focus your efforts on improving this article - I don't generally support branching (editing/evaluating alternate versions) since there's little reason why we cannot continue the process of discussion here around this text in this article.
To sum up - as the term's derogatory nature is well cited at this point, I disagree with your claim it's 'not able to be cited'. It's been cited. Re: NPOV issues - what do you believe is violating NPOV? As far as format issues, I have no real preferences - but at this point I don't see a valid justification for the claim that the article is POV (help me understand your viewpoint on this issue) and I of course do not agree it's uncited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
User:RyanFreisling said "To sum up - as the term's derogatory nature is well cited at this point, I disagree with your claim it's 'not able to be cited'. It's been cited." A single line in a single dictionary definition is not a valid citation, especially not when there's a vast amount of material illustrating other usages. The article as it is currently written argues five times in four short paragraphs that the term is deragotory and/or abusive, without any real support or discussion to that effect. That's not making a point, it's beating a drum.
User:65.185.34.168 was absolutely correct when they said "It is most commonly used in pornography (just do a websearch for it), and many transwomen are simply offended by being associated with pornography." Anyone who thinks otherwise has an axe to grind. -- 75.46.118.255 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, when the dictionary says 'derogatory slang', it's a derogatory term unless you can provide sources meeting WP policies to establish otherwise. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should anyone bother to contribute anything when you've reverted every substantial edit made in the last year? Like I said, an axe to grind. -- 75.46.118.255 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Argue for your limitations and they become true. Obviously no-one can expect to make a convincing case on WP without providing verifiable evidence to support their viewpoint. And if you really feel I'm violating WP:OWN as you say (and not just trying to make a not-so-oblique attack), just hop on over to the admin's noticeboard and ask for some advice/opinions from the admins there, or open a user conduct RfC if you think that may be more productive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
TBH, I've never really agreed with some of the "evidence" you've used - as i said before, a single dictionary cite is not really enough. And as WP is not Wiktionary, I believe that some edits have included significantly more information to than the current edition. Significantly, I have attempted to explain some of the old usages of the word (admittedly from you cite, but verified from other sources), some non-derogatory usage of the word (because like it or not, some people take ownership of such words, RE: Nigger) and extended why it's considered offensive, including citations.
Mostly I feel that almost any addition has been reverted for several months, and although the current version is better than some of the vandalism we've all had to revert, it is still the most basic of stub articles, when I believe there is enough content available to make at least a start-class article.
I know User:RyanFreisling is concerned RE undue weight if we mention non-derogatory issues. I have tried to address that in the edits I posted above. I don't think that was ever assessed after I made those changes. Despite criticism of the crockett example, and the suggestion of using Janice Raymond's quotes, that has not been included in the "current" version. It's a encyclopedia, not a dictionary - just because something is, now, doesn't make it not what it was before. A mean definition is barely enough - and as it is, the "Reasons why transwomen don't like it" is unreferenced (despite my hunting and providing one). Only that the term is derogatory is referenced - not why.
I think the worst part is that User:RyanFreisling has continuously said that any changes need to be referenced, but when changes are referenced, they are still reverted. Not edited, reverted. Not talked about, then edited or reverted, just reverted. The only reference you seem to accept is a single dictionary cite, from an online dictionary. Yes, I do think there's and issue of WP:OWN, yes, continuously editing the article to show a SINGLE opinion, without allowing any discourse or variation, is WP:NPOC, but by now I really don't care. The whole page has given me apathy, so I'm focusing elsewhere at the moment.
Once more I ask that people consider the alternative version i've posted before, with it's more recent revisions. If someone else wants to post it here, feel free. If not, don't worry - I'm unwatching this page.
Sorry for the rant ☺
07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make edits to this page, they should be 1) an improvement and 2) cited. Unless you cite your claim that the word has non-derogatory uses with verifiable sources, that claim is not sufficient to be encyclopedic. That's WP policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/e/Talk%7EShemale_d54d.html"