Talk:Transgender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Transgender.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transgender article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
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.
PEER This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Transgender as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents


[edit] Lede image

When I came upon this article, the following image was at the very top right of the page:

A transgender woman at New York City's gay pride parade
A transgender woman at New York City's gay pride parade
Another option
Another option

Is this really the best place for this particular image? Is a photo of a person in a miniskirt appropriately representative of all aspects of Transgender? I don't think so. I have moved it down, to the section about transgender and sexual orientation, since this person is at a Pride parade. I can't think of what image would be best, if any, for the lede. Suggestions? Thoughts? Photouploaded (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the pride picture, and agree it belongs in the article, but I actually prefer Image:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG as the lede, just because it's a less sexualized picture, and seems to present a more ordinary (but still pretty) image of a transgendered person. One person's opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Transgender, the article, encompasses the historic, medical, legal, interpersonal, sexual, identity... is a photo of one person really appropriate for the lede? She's not the Empress of Transgender. I bet we could come up with something more... broad-spectrum, I guess. Photouploaded (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have the same feelings about the photo of breasts at the top of Breast. Sure, they just happen to be the perky, pink-nippled breasts of a white person. There's no cultural bias there. Ugh. Photouploaded (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Image:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG would make a good lead picture - the "XY"-on-hand statement is more topical to the concept of transgendered sexuality more than a picture of a woman who happens to be transgendered, and is interesting enough to keep the reader interested without being overly sensational or sexualized. krimpet⟲ 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No matter what we put at the top, someone is going to say it doesn't represent someone. The idea is to graphically illustrate the concept. In that vein, either of these two photos work as the lead image. Let's not over-intellectualize something so pedestrian. --David Shankbone 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that "either" image would work. The tendency to exoticize transwomen and to sexualize their very existence is not something that we should perpetuate by putting a picture of a provocatively-posed trans*woman in skimpy clothing at the top of the article. I assume that since you took the picture, you probably would like to see it used, but please try to understand our position: the picture of a fully clothed transwoman in a non-sexual pose is a vast improvement. I will make the same replacement at Transwoman for the same reason. Photouploaded (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people don't find transexuals exotic and sexy at all. You are coming from a POV and you also are not the decider on this issue. We make decisions based upon consensus. Regardless, I think either picture works so whatever is in the lead makes no difference to me. --David Shankbone 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Did I say that I found transwomen "exotic", or anything else? No, I didn't! I said that there is a cultural tendency to sexualize transwomen, i.e. to put forth the view that transwomen are sex objects, not people.
Everyone comes from a POV. I am not the only person who expressed the opinion that the photo of the woman holding the banner is more appropriate for the lede than the photo of the woman in a miniskirt. If it really "makes no difference" to you, I would appreciate it if you would stop reverting (1, 2) the placement of the photos at Transwoman. Thank you. Photouploaded (talk)
Girls, girls, you're both pretty. Photouploaded, does it really hurt to finish the discussion and be confident of consensus before we make the changes? There's no need to start an edit-war when a nice friendly conversation would work just as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was confident of consensus, at least as far as DavidShankbone was concerned. He plainly said, "...I think either picture works so whatever is in the lead makes no difference to me".]. I took him at his word, and as there was no other objection, I swapped the images over at Transwoman. Then DavidShankbone swapped them back, twice. Indeed, it is important to make sure we have consensus, but that is impeded when people say one thing and do another. Photouploaded (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You are taking one discussion at one article and applying it to another article, when there was no consensus to do so. So, that was your mistaken impression. --David Shankbone 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What? DavidShankbone, before I made the change to Transwoman, I announced my plan to do so, on this page. You replied, "I think either picture works so whatever is in the lead makes no difference to me." If that wasn't how you felt about the proposed change, the only "mistaken impression" is the one you created. Photouploaded (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I agree with the change to the less sexualized photo as the lede. Although David Shankbone's photo is great it does show a societal tendency to youthfulness and sexualize which is certainly not universal and not universal to trans people. For anyone else looking to contribute images please consider our international audiences and see if we can find images that reach beyond our current imaged demographics. I also concur that having one discussion here is preferable when the issues are pretty much the same to both articles in question. Benjiboi 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I added an image of a famous Kathoey to the "Transgender people in non-Western cultures" - on a related note, this section could probably use a lot of expansion to cover and link to the many subjects in Category:Transgender in non-western cultures. --krimpet⟲ 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU for changing the leading image! I don't know if I ever said anything, but I've always hated it. As a trans person who has had (at least) one friend come to this page to learn more about me, it's nice to be more positively represented. --Ephilei (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Love the new image, the old one always bothered me. -- random trans user, jan 20, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.176.53 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel a need to comment on this matter. I can feel where the editors of this page are comming from. I too have spent allot of time on a page along with many other people. Now I have taken it upon myself to find a proper picture to represent it. These categories are so broad as to be impossible to represent by just one picture. For example I for one felt better represented by the former lead image. I actually do at times wear clothes like that young ladies. She is also a non-white person living in the USA. Lord knows I know how that feels. Last said image is closer to me in age. You cannot please all of the people all of the time (I personally feel that a good photomontage can work in this kind of case. Some people have a problem with them no matter what. Some people seem to want any and all pictures excised from this site.) There has to be some happy medium. An image that is non "sexualized" while at the same time not the image of a frowning stone faced protester in a cardigan sweater. Good luck. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about this a little more and I notice another disconcerting things about the choice and placement of photos in the article. For one thing the former supposedly sexualized lead image was moved to the section regarding sexual orientation. :-? I also note another problem with either or both images as a lead Image. They are all of transwomen. An article on "transgender" should also cover and represent transmen. The text is also written from the perspective and concerns of many transwomen and not really those of transmen. Like so many articles on TS TG topics this one would benefit from at least a restructuring if not a total re write. For now what I will do is find a WP acceptable image of a transman and add it to this article. Then I will contemplate such a rewriting of the article so as to incorporate transmen in a more natural way. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that particular image is of a transwoman in a gay pride parade, I would think it is fairly appropriate for a section on "Transgender in contrast with sexual orientation," as it does a good job at illustrating the often complicated relationship between the two concepts. An image of a transman would certainly be appropriate for balance, though the key is that any images shouldn't be of a random transgendered person, but should somehow illustrate and enhance the text they accompany. krimpet✽ 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that at all. In fact I don't see anything particularly sexual about that picture. I see a young transwoman dressed like many other young women would on a summer day. I just hope that many of the people editing this article understand that not every transwoman will see that the same way. Furthermore I don't see the problem with the picture I had before. So I will try another fair use image. The cover of a book by and about a transman.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Non-free images are strictly limited to certain extremely limited situations where obtaining a replacement is impossible - see WP:NFC. Non-replaceable does not simply mean "not easily available on the Internet" - there are plenty of opportunities to take a free-content picture of a transman for the article. krimpet✽ 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some hints at NPOV

Specifically, from the NPOV page:

"Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."

Now I recognize that a site specifically about a minority will have more focus on that minorities viewpoints, my specific problem is with the criticisms section of this page. Significantly more text is deveoted to rebuttals to the criticisms than to the criticisms themselves, exposing the undercurrent of bias from the author.

Something needs done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.86.139 (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If an encyclopedia in the days of the Bible were to be printed and say that Leprosy is caused by a disease that is not the person's fault, it would get censured and likely burned. The prevailing knowledge at the time (and still in many undercivilized countries) is that Leprosy is an affliction given divinely to someone who has committed a serious and grave sin/wrong. The criticism available against transgender at this time represents the exact same view of Leprosy as a divine punishment. The majority view of the medical community is that transgenderism, and transsexualism are quite rare, but normal, and not caused by an individual's personal choice. If you're talking about a condition that purports to have a medical basis, then the medical opinion matters, not the uninformed opinion. I really don't think there is creditability at all in presenting any argument from an opinion based on uninformed prejudgement, which is the majority of transgender criticism today. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually that entire section, to me, seems rather well-written and exceeding my expectations for articles. Is there a particular criticism that needs a fuller explanation? Benjiboi 11:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"The majority view of the medical community is that transgenderism, and transsexualism are quite rare, but normal, and not caused by an individual's personal choice." I would like to see this sourced. In the meantime, the propnouns are very confusing. Can we agree for the article to use the pronoun appropriate for the person's chromosomal gender. I was so lost trying to figure out who was male and who was female while perusing the article that I gave up. For the sake of an encyclopedia article the objective reality of the person's gender should dictate the gender specific pronouns rather than the individuals subjective, and scientifically innacurate, though most likely constitutionally protected view. Basejumper2 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes against the manual of styles for wiki, and it's not the trans community's role to make things less confusing to you. Snapdragonfly (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - Criticism section

This article is very much written without a neutral point of view. First example, the section headed as "Criticism" implies physical attacks (i.e. similar to "gay bashing"), lack of understanding, and bias. It goes on to attack mental health professionals, stating that people who identify themselves as transgendered are often educating mental health professionals. The bias indicates that the medical and health care community "has it wrong" and that the only accepted point of view is that "transgendered" is natural and has only natural cause. If anything, the situation is far more complex, with there being multiple causes and the descriptions of the health care profession being absolutely clueless is biased, wrong, and harmful in that it will dissuade people from counseling and professional assistance in favor of community. This article packs a lot of information, but needs to be taken back a step and have the issue analyzed from an neutral point of view, point out the current state of (varying) opinion of the scientific community profession, and what the theorized causes are in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.144.99 (talk) 12:18, February 8, 2008

I think you raise some valid issues regarding the "Criticism" section. I personally disagree with criticism sections, but I will move the NPOV tag from the top of the article to that section until some more involved editors can address your concerns. --David Shankbone 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you at least for letting it stand for another 2 minutes. I see the editor has come by to join the discussion. His total contribution to the discussion was to say "I think it is neutral" and to tell me to get an account. I won't get an account because it's basically a waste of time to contribute, as the way this was handled indicates. I was given no more than 2 minutes to justify my NPOV tag before it was reverted, and this revert was done while I was attempting to discuss it as per Wikipedia rules. My rolling back of the NPOV tag was then undone by an editor moments after I put it back on. Instead of discussing the challenge, or addressing my points, the editor said "I think it is neutral." To me the above just further illustrates the bias. One cannot actually even discuss it, let alone challenge the neutrality. There is no way that an editor fully read this article in light of my criticisms within the short time before my NPOV tag was reverted. Given that, future discussion on the points is a waste of time. You have my point of view, you will ignore it, end of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.144.99 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section is biased. I've made some adjustments - check them out! --Ephilei (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I worked on the Characterization as a Lifestyle section for a long time, but in the end I just deleted it. Can someone find a source that criticizes and defines what "trans lifestyle" is? I find myself unable to articulate and defend this idea when I can't comprehend it. Certainly a trans lifestyle exists, but are there really people saying that trans people should repress their gender by repressing how they want to live? I'm not sure this criticism is separable from the criticism that transness is a disorder, in which case they should be explained together. --Ephilei (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten the whole section. --Ephilei (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"The medical establishment and trans community thoroughly rejects these ideas." What "medical establishment"? No ref? Removed. The statement then becomes "The trans community thoroughly rejects these ideas." Well no shit, Sherlock. Following the mental illness hypothesis, how often do you think people with delusions admit that they are such? — NRen2k5(TALK), 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody went and messd it up again. Instead of fixing it this time I'll just tag it. Look, if you're going to defend the POV in a section then fucking defend it. Don't just blindly revert without so much as an edit summary. — NRen2k5(TALK), 14:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added {{criticism-section}}. I share David's above position on "criticism sections". In fact so does the project. This section a) needs rewriting b) sourcing, and c) needs to moved to appropriate places within teh article. A criticism of Transgender is probably the worst usage of criticism sections for POV forking that I have ever seen - what's next a criticism section in Boy?--Cailil talk 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained change

The site in question is registered to one Anne McLoughlin in Dublin, IE. (Proof) — NRen2k5(TALK), 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trans time-line or time-map

There is a need to present an over-view of the transition process. People who live or work with someone who is transitioning should be able to see what the process comprises, where the transperson is in the process and what is still to come.

Various aspects would need to be represented in more than one time-map. Aspects aimed at a particular audience or for a particular purpose could be grouped on one time-map. Topics for time-maps could be: Self-discovery and self-acceptance, Coming-out at work, Transitioning with family, etc. Aspects would include: Emotional issues, relationships, hormonal issues, physical and surgical issues, medical issues, legal issues, etc.

Please comment and suggest. TranWen (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be interested to read such an overview. The Transitioning article is quite brief and vague at the moment, and might be a good place to start. If you can get objective ranges for timescales that'd be really good. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transgender vs. Transsexual

I am not an expert in this field and came to the article seeking only a clear explanation of the difference between 'transgender' and 'transsexual.' With all due respect, I did not find it here.

In fact, this is perhaps one of the most opaque pieces of writing I've yet encountered in the Wikipedia (blessed be its name); it would appear that the authors are furthering some argument the general reader would be unfamiliar with. No doubt there is a place for this subtle & nuanced discussion, but I would suggest that this is not it. Could someone knowledgeable in the field of transgender please distinguish the two terms in plain English? It would be greatly appreciated. --OldCommentator (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Transsexual is the more precisely defined term that researchers and clinicians use to describe people who undergo or want to undergo sex reassignment. Transgender has not precise definition; it is used by people who are persuing social and civil rights to refer broadly to people who do not conform to simple-male and simple-female. In some circumstances, these purposes align with each other, in some circumstances they do not, causing friction between researchers (who use precise terms) and activists (who sometimes find medical terms pathologizing). I hope that is a help.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)