Talk:Transphobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Drawing a line under the history of the article and the talk
This article has had a rather tumultuous history of late. Without naming names, the party responsible for this has been blocked. During the course of this 'dispute', the article has been completely sourced by more than one editor, and has been re-structured and wikified. It still isn't perfect perhaps, but then, now that the article has been "brought up to code", it's in a prefectly good state to be further expanded and improved if anybody has anything to add. Later, I may well archive most of the talk before this page, partially because it is untdy, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that it was partly because of the numerous personal attacks on the page.
Future content in the article should be in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:OR, and I would suggest (though by no means demand) that editors might consider followin the sentiments of the essay WP:1RR with regards to this article, as per the wikipedia spirit - or in other words, discuss changes on the talk page :). --Crimsone 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- In general, the practice on article Talk pages is to do a complete archive, warts and all (save for examples of vandalism), so that editors can quickly and easily find information about the context of edits to the page. It's my belief that user talk should function the same way, and in the majority of cases that's how user talk archiving is done (though not to the same extent as article talk pages). A good explanation of how to archive is here. And yes, we should be very mindful of Wikipedia policies and the guiding principles of Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Indeed Captainktainer. I shall read the archive policy/tutorial later, but for the moment, if it's OK, I shall simply place the one discussion I've left out of the archive where it should be in that respect :) Thanks --Crimsone 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. Looks good! Captainktainer * Talk 21:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed Captainktainer. I shall read the archive policy/tutorial later, but for the moment, if it's OK, I shall simply place the one discussion I've left out of the archive where it should be in that respect :) Thanks --Crimsone 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transphobia in Public Accommodations
If nobody has any objections I would like to rename the section "Transphobia in Society" to "Transphobia in Public Accommodations," add a paragraph dealing with restrooms and move the sentence regarding the murder victims to a new section called "Transphobia and Violence." Samantha D 18:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --Alynna 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Adding a whole subsection on one sentence would be inappropriate. However, it's an important sentence and so cannot be removed from the article. The "transphobia in film" section could be moved to the society section however, though I still feel that section to be inappropriate. This article is starting to read far too much like a list of unrelated points - some of which aren't all that notable (film being one - and is debateable as a case of transphobia in the least) Crimsone 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Transphobia in Feminism
Why is there nothing about feminist transphobiacs, such as Andrea Dworkin, a notorious trans-hater? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.16.202.19 (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Page Move:Discrimination against Transsexuals
Can anyone give me a good reason why I shouldn't page move this article to Discrimination against Transsexuals? MPS 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because the article also covers discrimination against transgender people, so that title would be inaccurate. And "Transphobia" is a term already in use (for atleast 10 years), as a Google Scholar search shows. Mairi 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Transphobia in film
I would like to start discussion of this section. I am firmly of a belief that it does not belong in the article. The fact that some films have portrayed their serial killers as transgender people is not in and of itself transphobia.
- There have been real life cases of transgender people either going on a killing spree or otherwise committing serious crime. This is not because transgender people are twisted, but is because transgender people reflect a cross-section of society. There are deranged and/or dangerous people in society just as there are in the transgender community. Proportionally, it probably works out to around and about the same level of incidence.
- The fact that the directors of a given film have made their "baddie" transgender could be a simple theatrical device. People in general are often slightly unseated by "difference", and this is not nessecarily trans related. Of course, when you need to make a character "different" on a personal level through the impact-reducing lens of a camera, what more fundamental difference to the "norm" considered in the "mainstream" at the time these films were originally made than a person that does not conform to gender norms? The fact that "transphobia" exists at all is proof that such a device can still operate successfully today, and is not transphobic in itself.
- The director of said films could equally be simply reflecting reality - that some of these instances exist. Given the proportion of Hollywood movies that involve trans serial killers to those that don't (or even those that involve non-trans serial killers only), could this really be said to be some kind of transphobia of the film industry? Or even of a particular film?
- Who is to say that one of the areas intentionally involved in a film with a trans "baddie" isn't the negative reaction of other characters to their trans status, and how that might contribute to a trans persons "fall from grace" on top of any issues that individual character might have? Could part of the moral of such stories be that transphobia has serious and negative effects?
- The inclusion of The Rocky Horror Picture Show in itself makes the whole section laughable (and I even removed it once, only for it to be replaced). Has anybody been to see Rocky Horror at a cinema? What were you and the others around you wearing at the time? This can't even be said to be a misinterpretation of the directors true malicious and transphobic intent - the creator was Richard O'Brien, who even starred in it! - just read his article on Wiki! Better yet, the source doesn't even include it.
- Even if there were transphobia in film (which cannot be proven, nor demonstrated sufficiently), is it really in the film, or is it just a reflection of society? If so, it's society with the transphobia - not the film. If not, it's the directors that are transphobic, not the film. Either way, it still comes down to the fact that this isn't transphobia in film.
- The reference is quite clearly a page that has been written as one persons point of view, and better yet, it doesn't even say who that person is. As a source, it is thoroughly non-notable, with the exception of the transcripts which, as described already, don't automatically scream "transphobia".
The section, in my opinion, makes a mockery of the article, and the whole issue of transphobia. There are undoubtedly many more issues to raise along with the above, but I'm here to say why there's a problem, not to write an essay on it. Crimsone 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)