Talk:Homosexuality and transgender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Separate article

I was fairly certain that I had written something about this matter in an article about homosexuality, but either I am wrong or that bit "got lost" somehow. Anyway, it has its own article now. -- AlexR 14:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Some random notes for things i might add to this (in case I forget)

  • the 'T' in LGBT
  • drag, and the confusion surrounding
  • originally "straight" relationships surviving a transition even though the other partner isn't bi.
  • trans people who go through a phase of thinking they are gay

Morwen - Talk 14:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


That all sounds very interesting. Hope you get back to it sometime.

I tried to edit this, but gave up from here:

  • Since a large percentage of transgender people prefer partners of another gender to their own gender identity, that very often leads to relationships between people of different genders, but the same sex. So while these relationships are heterosexual, as far as the partners are concerned, they appear homosexual on the outside.

I am understanding that you are using sex to refer to biological sex, or birth sex, and gender to refer to psychological identification, but I found this paragraph very confusing to re-phrase. Here's a preliminary suggestion:

  • Many transgender people are heterosexual, but because their birth sex is male, while their gender is female (or vice-versa), their relationships may appear to be homosexual to outsiders.

Nah - that still needs work. - PaulHammond 04:54, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for starting up a new debate right below yours... I'll try to continue it here! As I said below, if you differentiate between sex to mean physical sex and gender to mean gender identity, then a relationship between a transgender man and another man would still be homosexual, even though they're of a different gender. The assertion that such relationships only appear homosexual thus isn't entirely correct, their gender being what's different and not their sex as such. If the distinction between gender and sex is really as common as the article makes it seem, perhaps we could think of a new word? 129.240.106.220 13:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How about keeping the debate in one place? As I already said several times, the article already says that a relationship between a transwoman (I assume you mean a transwoman - a transsexual man would be a female-to-male transsexal person) and a cisman can be called technically homosexual (although you would have to define the "sex" part, because, you know, there is the intersex problem), but obviously it is not "gay", and since the word homosexual does not just refer to a physical action, most likely both people would feel distinctively misunderstood. Not to mention that calling such a relationship "homosexual" might be a bit confusing if they decidedly look F+M. -- AlexR 16:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, can't argue with that, I guess. Perhaps one could say it's the term "homosexual" in itself that's misleading (seeing as we're all different), and not the usage on this page. Seems like I'm barking up the wrong tree. 129.240.106.220 16:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This article seems a bit POV in that it's entirely and utterly politically correct. The author seems to imply that a relationship between a transsexual person and a person of the same sex would be heterosexual because of that person's transsexual gender identity - However, the same might partially be said for any homosexual relationship, sexuality being a huge part of gender identity, and a lot of behavior seen in homosexuals being seen as typical of that of the opposite gender by society at large. As such, it might be wise to revise the article to further emphasize the problems in using the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual" to describe relationships involving transsexuals in general. (Rounin from Norwegian wikipedia)
If you don't even notice that this article is about transgender and homosexuality, instead of transsexual, how serious do you expect your "criticism" to be treated? Also, your theory that sexuality is part of a person's gender identity is at the very least highly questionable, just as your statement that "homosexuals" to a large part fulfil gender roles that are non-standard. That might be your opinion, but it is not exactly based on facts, either. Not to mention that you seem to imply that there can be not really a debate whether a relationship between two people with the same birth sex, but a different gender identity is homo- or heterosexual. I can assure you, though, that this debate exists, and furthermore implying that such a debate can be only rooted in "political correctness" (and therefore irrelevant/factually incorrect or whatever) is rather daring, but certainly nothing remotely NPOV. Oh, and BTW - nobody cares much in what other WP you claim to have worked - get a username or expect to be treated as an IP. -- AlexR 09:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Look... Let's keep this at the "exchanging relevant opinions instead of personal attacks" level here... First of all, whatever the difference between transgender and transsexual might be in your definition, and let's remember that such definitions vary... Even though the article differentiates between "sex" and "gender", that doesn't obligate anyone else to do so. However, in view of that definition, let me rephrase my argument to conform... While a relationship between two people who are physically the same sex (but different gender) would typically be seen as heterosexual by some, the very fact that both parties are the same sex would make it homo-sexual by lexical definition. So using the word heterosexual to mean a relationship between two people of the same gender (and not sex as the word implies) is problem-filled. As for the other implications I made in my previous posting, please disregard them - They are indeed POV. --Some IP
I've been trying to think up a word for that, by the way... A relationship between people of different gender... Too bad homogenous already means something else. :) --Some IP
I'll attempt to continue the debate above, if that's okay with you...? 129.240.106.220 13:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, you might not be aware of the difference between transgender and transsexual, but that does not change the fact that a) such differences exist and b) most people who have a clue about the subject are aware of the fact. Also, while some people do refuse to make a distinction between sex and gender there can be hardly any denial that lots of people make that distinction. Furthermore, homo- and heterosexual do, to most people, not just imply two people with the same set of chromosomes or genitals or whatever you prefer to substitute for "sex" (each definition does, btw, bring up more problems, compare intersex). Especially homosexual implies usually more - hence the problem with describing a relationship merely in terms of phycial attributes. I may also add that your objection of "lexical definion" homo- or heterosexuality are already addressed in the article, and that nobody wishes to imply that "homosexual" is a particular usefull term of describing same-gender, but different-gender relationships, so what exaclty was your point?
Oh, and I don't care which IP bores me with the umpteenth repetition of that debate - people who can't be bothered to get a username can hardly expect anybody else to try to figure out whether they are one, two, or umpteen people. Regard the use of "you" therefore as a generic appelation or whatever. And getting somewhat better informed before your next posting (including reading the article you are complaining about) might be advisable, too. -- AlexR 14:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My point is simply that the word homosexual not only appears to, but actually applies to a relationship between any two people of the same sex, regardless of one being transgender. And if you can't keep your posts reasonably civil and factual, I'll feel free to edit it without consulting you first. 129.240.106.220 14:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, since the article already says so, so what exactly is your point? Besides, I am reasonably civil and factual, while you have obviously not even read the article you are complaining about. So edit all you like, I will feel perfectly free to revert anything that is false and/or meant as an insult. You know, whining does not win debates - arguments do. Not reading an article one complains about really, really is not advisable. -- AlexR 16:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Irregardless"

"Irregardless" is not a word. Please give me a good reason not to revert its inclusion. Kelly Martin 03:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

I think this article provides an excellent background on the problems inherent in extending the modern concepts of homosexuality and heterosexually to include transgendered folks. The issue I have is with the vague conclusion, which seems to imply that homosexuality and heterosexually cannot be consistently applied to transfolk. In addition I'd have to question the claim that the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia" are used "increasingly", or indeed, anywhere other than rarely outside academic discussions.

One of the article's pitfalls is its lengthy digression into biological classification of transgendered people. It's an accurate and informative discussion, but with respect to transfolks' sexual relationships, it's ultimately inconclusive and irrelevant. What's socially significant is not whether transfolk are biologically classified as male or female (as it's an issue that can be simply and unambiguously resolved by referring to transfolk as FTM or MTF). In practice, the defining factor is the transperson's own gender identity, which is well acknowledged as independent of a person's biological sex classification. This is consistent with the article's opening characterization of homosexuality as attraction between people of the same gender.

Interpreting homosexuality and heterosexuality with respect to a transperson's own gender identity makes sense in modern social life. For example, a stealth MTF who's dating a straight man in mainstream society is clearly pursuing a heterosexual relationship. An FTM who identifies as a butch dyke and dates a lesbian woman is engaging in a homosexual relationship. Conversely, an MTF who identifies as a man (who likes to crossdress) may date a straight woman and consider himself heterosexual. Likewise, an FTM who identifies as a man may pursue heterosexual relationships with women, just as other straight men do. --LishLash 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to disagree with you - this article is not written for people who already know a lot about transgender matters, if they do, they probably don't need this article to explain things to them. Articles on the Wikipedia are written so that people who don't have a clue about a matter can learn about it. Hence, while I agree with you generally, we cannot just state that the only thing that counts is gender identity, because there are dissenting opionions on that, as you well know. What you and I think about those dissenting opinions is entirely irrelevant as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned.
Also, the last paragraph "Interpreting homosexuality and heterosexuality with respect to a transperson's own gender identity makes sense in modern social life." -- well, we are already having that discussion over at Talk:Transgender, and here as there I disagree with you. It is easy to define a heterosexual relationship with regard to transpeople, but homosexual, that is not so trivial. Your example shows so -- a butch-identified transman does not even have the same gender identity as a lesbian (cis)woman, so how can that relationship possibly be homosexual? Well, if one uses the old usage, it is clearly homosexual, but it is equally clearly not homogender. And since I am fairly certain that you really don't want to regress on the first usage, and since "homogender" is - thanks god! - not a word, I guess you can't really use those words in a meaningfull way. Of course, if that is the current use in San Francisco, feel free to add a paragraph to that. But since that usage seems not to have spread beyond SF, more than a paragraph is most certainly not appropriate. Oh, and BTW - if you are so keen on current usage, why do you keep using MTF and FTM - especially many transmen loath the term. (And yes, that includes me.) -- AlexR 00:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd welcome other transfolk's opinions, but this is the first time I've ever heard anyone object to the terms MTF and FTM, which along with male and female, are about as neutral and factual as it gets. My impression is that you're speaking from your specific point of view as a transman rather than generalizing about the broad range of transgender folks' attitudes. MTF and FTM are terms in widespead and uncontroversial use well beyond San Francisco, a prominent example being FTM International, which claims to be "the largest, longest-running organization serving the Female-to-Male community".
I agree with you that a transman has a man's gender identity that contrasts with that of a lesbian woman. However, this article covers not only transmen, but transgender folks in general, and many FTM's identify not as men, but as butch dykes or genderqueer (and are well represented at sites like butch-femme.com). These FTM's don't identify as heterosexual and would likely consider their relationships with lesbian women as queer or homosexual. These distinctions based on gender identity are very meaningful within LGBT communities, whose viewpoints I think should rate considerably more than a single paragraph in an article titled "Homosexuality and Transgender".
Your point that we don't have words like "homogender" and "heterogender" is well taken. I think that's why people have instead broadened the usage of the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" to refer not just exclusively to an individual's biological sex but to gender-based relationships as well. Since biological sex status varies widely (and is not usually publicly disclosed) by transgendered people, gender identity is the most consistent basis for classifying our sexual relationships. While there are non-trans people who may dispute the validity or significance of our gender identities, I don't see why their dissenting opinions should dominate this particular article. I think it's reasonable to expect an article about homosexuality and the transgendered to clearly state the views of people who identify as both. --LishLash 01:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed title change

I recommend we change this article title to Transgenderism and sexuality to make it more general. One of the issues is that homosexuality doesn't cover the full range of issues involving sexual orientation and behavior.

I suggest this as we try to figure out how to organize all the naming schemes for male-to-female transitioners based on sexual orientation, which currently resides on a page with what some feel is not an ideal title (formerly titled autogynephilia. That article could then be linked here as a sort of sub-article, with summary style used here. Thoughts? Jokestress 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this -- this article is about how the concepts of transgender and homosexuality go together -- not about the sexuality of transpeople in general. Which would have been obvious if you had read it. The same, btw, goes for the BBL article -- that one is about one particular hypothesis regarding the origin of cross-gender feelings, and also not about the sexuality of transpeople in general. If you want an article about that, I suggest you put it into transman and transwoman respecively, because obviously, it makes not all that much sense to put both into one article, which, as you clearly demonstrated, would in all likeliness have a strong transwomen-bias, because, well, don't transmen in your opinion have a sexual orientation, or what?
If you feel there is need for an article about transgender people (and, btw - transgenderism isn't a word. And if it were, it would make no sense here, because on the rare occasions it is used, it denotes political groups or aims) and sexuality (providing you also write one about black people and sexuality, right-wingers and sexuality, and Finns and sexuality. At least.), write one, but don't, as happened with the BBL article, take one, mess it up, and leave important information out. This article here is not about the sexuality of transpeople, it does merely explain how and why the concepts of transgender and homo/heterosexuality go together (or not, as the case may be). -- John Smythe 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that these issues bring up strong emotions. That's why we should go slow. The "BBL" page is indeed a mess, and I am trying to figue our how to organize a lot of overlapping articles and sub-articles. "Transgenderism" is a word, [1] but I do not have strong feelings what gets used here. The larger issue arises form something in your comment:
it does merely explain how and why the concepts of transgender and homo/heterosexuality go together (or not, as the case may be).
If it's not supposed to be exclusively about homosexuality, shouldn't the title contain "sexuality", rather than just "homosexuality" or "homo/heterosexuality"? Shouldn't this at least be called "homosexuality vs. transgender" if the goal is to distinguish the two? Jokestress 19:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of the article - or one of them - is to explain how difficult it is to apply the terms homo- and heterosexual to transpeople, and with the former it is even more difficult. It is about concepts, not the actual sexuality of transpeople. (And, I may add, the BBL hypotheis is just related, but most certainly does not belong into any article but its own. Least of all this one.) Also, transgender and homosexuality are often thought together, especially some form of "transgender is just an extreme form of homosexuality" or similar. No parallel concept exists, as far as I know, for heterosexuality, at least in the common (mis-)conceptions about transgender people. Hence "homosexuality and ..." is the most appropriate title. "Sexuality and..." would imply a vastly different article than this one. And I see no reason to make that a "vs." -- the two concepts are often confused, but that does not make them mutually exclusive.
As for "transgenderism" -- most unfortunately the IJT choose that word in its title, but it is almost the only instance where it is used at all, especially when not refering to political activities. I see no reason to use this ill defined and ugly word where others might do. See its article. Unless, of course, you want to write about the political conceptions of sexuality of transgenderist groups ...
As for overlapping articles in general, that is unavoidable, unless we wish to put each and every even vaguely related topic into one article, which we most certainly don't want to do. The BBL article is the best, but not the only example of what happens when well-meaning people try to replace a long-standing and working structure. Always keep in mind that each article has to be able to stand on its own, and that most readers are not familiar with the topic. And we don't want them do drown in far-too-long articles which cover several topics at once, either. Hence, do me a favour and be very carefull with re-organising things. -- John Smythe 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
See also: Sexual orientation of transwomen and Sexual orientation#Sexual orientation and gender identity. Personally I agree with Jokestress's suggestion to change the title, and I think one good reason is actually given by John Smythe above: "the page is about the difficulty of applying the terms homo- and heterosexual to transpeople". So for accuracy, it should be "homosexuality/heterosexuality and transgender", which could be abbreviated to "sexual orientation and transgender", or "transgender and sexuality". When I see the title "homosexuality and transgender", I expect to see, for example, discussion of the prevalence of homosexuality among transpeople, and studies showing a strong relationship between childhood gender nonconformity and adult homosexuality. All of these things could easily be added to the current article, and would still fit nicely in a renamed article too, as well as a brief discussion of "autogynephilia". We should also be mindful of content forking, and I think a stronger article can be made by merging some of these related topics. ntennis 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this article mostly deals with the term "homosexuality" and transgender, I still think the title is appropriate, also because, as I already said, it is of the two the most commonly associated one with transpeople. "Homo-/heterosexuality and transgender" might also be appropriate, but I would kindly ask those people who really think that "sexual orientation and transgender", or "transgender and sexuality" could possibly be appropriate titles for this article to read it first, since I don't think they did that. This article is about how homo/hetero can be applied to transpeople, and it is neither about the the sexual orientation in general of transpeople, nor about the even more general sexuality of transpeople. I also do not think that it is a good idea to merge this one into one dealing with those questions; kindly check what links to this page, and you will see that this article is the appropriate aim of said links. I do not consider it a very good idea to throw anything remotely related to an article into one article; the fact that this Sexual orientation of transwomen exists is merely the result of an edit war, IIRC, and heck, there is no way of stoping people to do that, after all. I strongly oppose merging this article with anything that is only remotely connected with its content, and that goes for both the BBL article and any both a discussion about the sexual orientation and the sexuality of transpeople. I would also appreciate if those who are so much in favour of merging this article would do bother to read it in the first place, because then it would be obvious that this is an utterly nonsensical proposal, that would most likely hurt the aim of informing people about this particular topic. I would also appreciate not to be quoted as supporting something with is the exact (and stated) opposite of what I said. Such behaviour is less than honest and definitely not appreciated. I will escalate this to the LGBT message board, since it does not seem that the two people proposing the merge are acting in good faith -- that suggested merge will make important information harder to find and less accessible for people new to the topic, and therefore hurt both the purpose of Wikipedia and transpeople. And having a spectacularly bad example of how not to deal with articles in the BBL article is no excuse whatsoever for this, either. -- John Smythe 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
John, calm down. There is nothing in my post that warrants your response: you have accused me of not reading the article (?!?!), being "less than honest", and then (with delicious irony) of acting in bad faith! Combined with your determination to "escalate this", it demonstrates a seige mentality — that, I might add, is no fun to work with. So, "your" article is safe. Although strangely, I don't see your name in the edit history at all.... but wait, there's mine! Could it be that I actually have something to contribute? It's a sad but real flaw in wikpedia that irrational and aggressive behaviour is exactly what allows editors to "get their way" on pages over which they feel some sort of proprietary relationship.
For the record (in case other editors would like to battle with you) I'll just point out that the Sexual orientation and gender identity section of the sexual orientation article (which I wrote, by the way), covers the same ground as this one, and also manages to cover these other issues. The relationship between these issues is close, not distant. Here's how it goes, point by point:
  • Homosexuality (historically) seen as a kind of gender inversion, and heterosexuality as gender normativity
  • Growing theoretical separation of gender (variance) and (homo)sexuality
  • The broad distribution of genders and sexualities, and the statistical correlations.
  • The definitional problem of "same" and "different" sex sexuality with regards to gender variant people (the main subject of this article)
This article actually needs a lot of tightening up in my opinion. it also spends far too much time on various biological definitions of sex, which really belong in another article as they are relevant to far more than just homosexuality and transgender. So there's my 2 cents. Spend it wisely. ntennis 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Source

Source #1 linked in the article

seems to have always been bad or to have gone bad. It's a big advertising website that sells lingerie among other things. Cornince 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. The text that used to be there also appears on this website: http://jenellerose.com/htmlpostings/20th_century_transgender.htm (under the heading "The Gay, Lesbian, and Feminist Backlash"). I'll update the link. ntennis 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd sentence in section “Actual current usage”: Active male not homosexual?

The 2nd sentence of the first paragraph of the article section '“Actual current usage”

  • Compare for example the assumption held in many cultures that only the passive partner of male-male intercourse is behaving in a non-male way, while the active partner retains his masculinity, and therefore is not regarded as gay or homosexual, while the passive partner is.

in that form is unacceptable weasel wording under the heading actual current usage when not supplying a citation of a serious source that makes clear which specific (many!?) cultures held this belief/assumption in which specific age/period/century. To make the lack of logic in that incomplete (thus manipulative pov) statement and its dubious positioning under actual current usage clear, I added the following sentence to it

  • By the same “logic”, the active adult partner would not be behaving paedophilic when having intercourse with a passive child/juvenile partner.

which was removed as POV, without questioning the obvious POV nature of the previous active male not homosexual in a actual current usage sense, which is most likely nothing more than some peoples wishful thinking, because at very least the active partner of male-male intercourse must logically be considered bisexual in a actual current usage sense. Until clarification of the matter, I've removed that 2nd sentence of the first paragraph.
-- ParaDox 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The solution to a problem with Wikipedia is never to make an edit intended to point out this flaw. If you take issue with the part of only an passive man obtaining the term homosexual, then please we would ask you to discuss it, or edit it out yourself, you certainly should not go and edit in something just to make your point about how biased the statement is. While you would disagree with the logic of the statement, cultures do exist where such a condition is true, that only the passive partner in a male-male relationship is engaging in homosexual behavior. You can disagree with the logic of the statement, and question the reasoning, but to say that it should not be considered is incorrect behavior on Wikipedia. It should never be the purpose of an editor to deny reality. --Puellanivis 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of the Proposed Title Change

The title clearly needs changing. At the moment it uses "homosexuality" as if "heterosexuality" is otherwise assumed, which is not only unduly asymmetric but also bi erasive (let's assume that's a word for now). The article actually discusses problems in the homo/hetero terminology that arise from transgender identities; so at the very least I suggest this article be renamed something like Transgender issues in sexuality terminology. Instead, I think it would be better to merge this article and Sexual orientation#Sexual orientation and gender identity into a full-blown article on that topic. —Greg K Nicholson 16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur. The first thing that popped into my mind when I found this article was how poorly named it was. I think an article titled Sexual orientation and gender identity would be quite appropriate. ~~ tonei the genderqueer alaskan 07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] results of an automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 25 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)