Talk:Transman/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Archive1

Contents

Comment

Shouldn't "lesbian transmen" be "hetero transmen" or "ex-lesbian transmen"? It's trans women who can be called lesbians, not the other way around. --Sonjaaa 05:46, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Nope. There are people who identify as lesbian transmen, that is (ex-)female-bodies persons who are now "male presenting" and who still identfy as lesbians (but not as women) and are accepted as such by at least a part of the lesbian community. I know that is irritating (it surely irritated me) but that is how some identify, and therefore, the entry is correct.

BTW, "hetero" is - like "homo" - not exactly without problems when refering to transpeople, and "ex-lesbian" also has a host of problems, one of them, as said, the "ex-"part, and the other the question to which extend a transmen who desires women is lesbian; the latter question having about as many answers as there are transmen who desire women. Some have always refuted the description "lesbian", a few even refused having any sexual relationship because they did not want that label, some had been activ in the lesbian community and thought they somehow "had to be lesbian" while never quite feeling they actually were, and some felt perfectly at home within the lesbian community, and did not wish to leave it when they changed their gender role and/or their body.

Once more, life turns out to be colorful, complicated and wonderful ;-) AlexR 10:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool! thanks for the explanations. I gueess I always felt confused about trans guys calling themlelves lesbians, because it undermines the validity of lesbian trans women. But as you say, in our crazy gender variant world, people can really identify as anything, and I think it's their right to be able to call themselves this.--Sonjaaa 05:09, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion on the spelling "transperson" versus "trans person" on Talk:Transwoman. Feel free to join in. Peace!--Sonjaaa 05:09, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'd rather call that another attempt to impose the usage of a small group on all others. Disgusting. -- AlexR 08:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sonja, you are absolutely right: there aren't any and cannot be "lesbian transmen". It's a nonsense. And this is yet another attempt of transphobic individual to take over this article. Thru the night 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IP edits 4th Nov. 04

I reverted many of those edits.

  • Transmen do not necessarily have surgery.
  • The self-descriptions are a quote, and should therefore retain their capital spelling.
  • "For some transmale-identified people" is not correct, otherwise there would be little need for all those self-descriptions.
  • The "please note" section is somewhat questionable, since Wikipedia is not an usage guide. I left it in anyway, but changed it a bit to apply to all, not just those who identify as "men".
  • Cut "like it is with anyone who is not transsexual". a) this article does not just deal with "transsexuals", and b), the variation is obviously different from that of cisgender people, so it is wrong, too.
  • Restored cut of "queer" or "lesbian" transmen.
  • Restored previous order on links; unless there is a very good reason to change it, alphabetically sorting them is a good idea. Sorted "famous transmen", too; although I wonder wheter it is needed, there is a List of transgendered people already. If it ultimately remains, it should be expanded.

And I might add, it is generally preferred when edits are not made with lots of savings in between, it clutters up the history. Use the preview button instead, please. -- AlexR 06:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's obvious that English isn't your first language.

And this

I'd rather call that another attempt to impose the usage of a small group on all others. Disgusting.

Is a bit hypocritical when you restored a little used and offensive designation ("lesbian transmen") to this entry.

The parts of this entry that you restored muddy the meaning of what a transman/transmale/transsexual man is and to be politically correct in embracing all gender identifications erroneously as transmale. As transmale, it it offensive that lesbians deign to usurp the designation of "trans" for their own purposes. User:TheTransman

I take it that this is meant to be a reply to my statements about IP edits 4th Nov. 04. First of all, answers to comments should usually not go under new headings, but should be formated just like this. Otherwise, the connection between the two entries can get lost. Second, it is a lot better if you sign your entries, like this: --~~~~. I signed your entry for you, but please do so yourself the next time, otherwiese, after a while nobody knows who wrote what. Third, making a heading that is quite likely to offend is not exaclty a polite thing to do, and people who argue with plain style or spelling errors are usually regared as having no other arguments. Not to mention that I cannot recall having read any Wikipedia policy that excludes non-native speakers from editing entries. In fact, I cannot recall either any particular criticism about my writing, so if you consider what I said to be so badly worded, then in the article, correct it, and in this discussion, at least don't put it into headings unless that is what you want to talk about.
As for your comments, those are obviously your personal views. And while you are entitled to hold every personal view you wish to, you cannot insist that this article conforms to them. There are transmen who do not identify as transsexual (me, for example), and there are people who call themselfes "lesbian transmen", whether you or I or whoever else likes that or not. I am also under the distictive impression that you don't even know what "lesbian transmen" usually are, namely female-to-male transgendered people who do indeed change gender, but do not want to leave the lesbian community they were part of for a long time entirely behind them. And I don't see what right you or I or anybody else has to prohibit them to do exactly that, and to choose exactly the self-description they want to. That is not "usurping" anything. The article writes about facts as they are, not as some homophobic 150% transsexuals would like them to be. Which is why I remove the NPOV notice, it is inappropriate. -- AlexR 17:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

add to definition

Perhaps an section on this issue should be added to the definition. This can be a very confusing topic even to those familiar with transexuality and transsexual persons (perhaps except to those who identify in this way). I expect that this proposed entry will not be perfect the first time; however it doesn’t appear to be very well articulated.

Gbm2b83 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging into TS

Who came up with that idiotic idea? The article clearly states that not just transsexual, but also transgender people from the FtM direction are called or call themselfes transmen. Therefore, obviously the idea of merging the article into transsexuality is at best false, but quite likely the not exactly rare discrimination of non-transsexual transgender people by "proper transsexals". Either that, or the person who demanded the merger just can't read. Not to mention that whoever did that obviously didn't think there was a need to start a discussion about this anywhere. -- AlexR 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Men's Ts Resources, Australia

I'm wondering why someone keeps reverting the page to say that this page is "for FtMs only". When I go to the web page in question, it says: "Men's Ts Resources in Australia (also known as FTM Australia) has been offering resources and health information for all men with transsexualism (identified 'female' at birth), their family members (partners, parents, siblings and others), healthcare providers and other professionals; government and policy makers since 2001." That doesn't sound to me like they mind non-FtMs accessing their web site. Catamorphism 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying "FtMs" only, but "transsexual men only". Which is exactly what the site says, and what you quote. Which means that this group does not want non-transsexual transmen (or their family and friends). Which is quite relevant information for those non-TS-TMs, who would hardly feel welcome on such a site. If any group were for black or white people only, or for christians or pagans only, or whatever, I don't think there would be a problem saying so, so why is there one saying this is a TS only one? They exclude all non-TS-TMs explicitly, so why not say so? -- AlexR 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But the sole purpose of including their site in the external links section here is so that people can go to their web site and get more information. Their web site is open to everybody. Inclusion of the link is not meant to suggest that people should join the group, just that the web site is available. I feel like I'm not able to make myself clear here. Catamorphism 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Errr ... well, I don't think anybody will understand "(transsexual men only)" as "only transsexual men can access the website" -- how should that work? Or, if they had indeed such a system there (which would be very difficult to put into place), then the site would not be linked. Hence I would guess that everybody (except you, obviously) understands that this means that the group which operates the website is for transsexual men only. And this is very relevant information, because it indicates that the website will contain only information on transsexual men, not non-TS transmen. So what is your problem? Links in the WP often come with comments which enable the reader to better judge whether that site will be worth visisting for their purpose. And since they say so themselfes, I really don't understand what your problem is. -- AlexR 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How about saying "for transexual men" without "only"? -- infinity0 14:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And what are non-transsexual transmen? Isn't that like saying non-avian birds? Or non-Caledonian Scots?
Nuttyskin 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a book that I added to External links

Quoting from [1]

Quote - - " Gorton, R. Nick, M.D. & others. Medical Therapy & Health Maintenance for Transgender Men: A Guide for Health Care Providers. Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Services. 2005. bibliog. ISBN 0-9773250-0-8. open access.

This full-text, open-access book is free under the GNU Free Documentation License and is available at www.nickgorton.org in open office, PDF, and Microsoft Office. Gorton (Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Svs.), Jamie Buth (medicine, Tulane Univ.), and Dean Spade (Sylvia Rivera Law Project) provide an essential text for “anyone wishing to learn about the medical treatment of transgender men—whether transman, provider, or perhaps even both.” While some of the book will be difficult for nonclinicians to understand, much is well within the grasp of most consumers. There is not a great deal of quality material readily available on this topic, so this is a welcome addition.

" - - Close Quote FemVoice 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Please note" line

I changed this to start "It should be noted", rather than "Please note" since the first one sounds more formal. I also removed the second sentence for reasons of style. Maerk 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Readability

This is a very difficult article to read. Not the subject matter, just the actual act of reading. I can appreciate the need for accurate ideology here, but it seems to be ALL ideology, and somewhat dismissive of the average reader who just wants some basic information.

I'd do something myself, but I don't know enough about the subject, and I'm pretty sure that whatever I did would offend someone's ideological sensisbilities one way or the other and get reverted. But I did want to put it out there that this reads more like a queer theory paper than an encyclopedia article, and I hope that future revisions will take the needs of curious and uninformed readers into account. Best, dablaze 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Leslie Feinberg

Should Feinberg really be listed as a transman? AFAIK, ze doesn't identify as one. Kolindigo 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe ze is genderqueer, and therefore is not FTM. I'm removing hir from the list of transmen. --MykellM 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Redlinked transmen moved here

The following are the transmen from "List of notable transmen" who are redlinked; meaning that there is not an article written about them. There is a great opportunity here to create articles on these transmen if you can assert their notability. Joie de Vivre 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Alan Hart (1890-1962), physician
  • Louis Graydon Sullivan (1951-1991), writer, biographer and founder of FTM International [2]
  • Shannon Minter, attorney
  • River Allan, activist, public speaker, photographer, subject of documentary "CurrentTV's River"
  • Spencer Bergstadt, attorney
  • Kylar Broadus, attorney
  • Mauro Isaac Cabral, educator [3][4]
  • Aaron H. Devor, writer and educator [5]
  • Jacob Hale, philosopher [6]
  • David Harrison, actor, performer and playwright[7]
  • Michael M. Hernandez, writer and activist
  • Zander Keig, Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer [8]
  • Rocco Katastrophe Kayiatos musician, hip hop, performer, activist, writer [9]
  • Del Lagrace Volcano, performer and photographer [10] [11]
  • Blaine Paxton Hill, physics [12]
  • Martin Rawlings-Fein, editor, writer, filmmaker [13] and activist [14]
  • Mark Rees, activist
  • Stephen Thorne, police officer
  • Daniel Van Oosterwijck, attorney
  • Jacob Nash, activist, educator, In Re Nash (Ohio courts)

pregnancy

It'd be nice if there were a segment about transmen becoming pregnant, since I'm hoping there'll be consensus for a little note at the top of pregnancy indicating that people go here for that special case, as it's outside the scope of that article. Thanks. Kuronue | Talk 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

'Self-descriptions'

I find the section where it lists 'self-descriptions for transmale identified people' completely irrelevant and offensive. NO ftm refers to himself as a 'grrl'. This article is about female-to-MALE transsexuals and transgendered individuals. Additionally, drag kings and FTMS are NOT the same thing. A drag king is a self-identifying woman who dresses up in male clothing. Transmen LIVE as guys; they don't just dress up as them. Also, how is 'amazon' relevant AT ALL? 'Passing woman'? Whoever added that section is obviously not a FTM. I desperately want to remove this, but I know it will just be added back in. --House Boy 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly drag kings aren't the same as FTM transsexuals, aren't the same as passing women, aren't the same as Amazon-identified folk. The article addresses this fine, stating that these are "self-descriptions for some transmale-identified people" ("some" is an important word here") -- descriptions which those people identify themselves with, and are comfortable with. And it goes on to say that "Many of these designations would be considered offensive by transmen who identify with another self-description." What about this wording offends you? because it'd be helpful to know so that Wiki editors can work towards making it more neutral. However, the words themselves are not offensive, I would think, as they are self-chosen labels and are not implied to all mean exactly the same thing as "transsexual."
Saying "NO ftm" does this, or "obviously not a FTM", is a pretty blanket statement. Although it's problematic that a lot of these labels don't have sources, a number of works by and about transpeople -- especially younger, more gender-variant-identified or genderqueer people -- include use of similar words. Switchercat talkcont 00:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You pretty clearly have a bias towards including clearly non-male labels in an article about men. Ftm shouldn't redirect to transman. Those labels may or may not belong on a page about the transmasculine spectrum. Maybe we need a new article on that. But keeping it here is taking the focus away from trans men, the people *named* in this article. I would doubt that genderqueer people who aren't transsexual men would want to be named on an article on transmen. I am new and rather unfamiliar with wikipedia's rules, but this clearly indicates an individual with an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.38 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The random string of irrelevant identites lifted from the defunct American Boyz group

I think there is no way to defend including identities that seem to contradict the main thrust of what "trans man" is all about. I think someone with an agenda must really want "tomboy" and "amazon" and "bearded female" or whatever to appear on a page about a group of people who are male identified and almost completely live as men or intend to do so.

why does ftm redirect here? in my experience, transman and ftm have different connotations and usages. maybe that AmBoyz boilerplate identity section would be better served on a page describing the wild and wooly wide open ftm world and not here, where it tends to obfuscate the point that trans men are men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.38 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

AmBoyz quote removal/reverting + Article needs to comply with WP:V / WP:NOR + WP:CITE

Looking at the above discussion, I'm not about to delve into whether or not the trans* representation of Wikipedia ought to be divided further. However, I think it's impossible to keep the supposed AmBoyz quote either way, becuase at the moment it has no source. amboyz.org is defunct, it was never quoted as a reference with dates and such, the group was never notable enough to get a wiki article, archive.org can't retrieve a copy, and when you google for the less well-known labels ("Female Guy" "Tranz" "Boss Grrl" "Bearded Female", in this case), you get 1) This wiki article and 2) sites that have lifted info from here, as the top results. Combined, this seems like a clear violation of both WP:V and WP:NOR. If those labels are frequent enough to be mentioned in a Wiki article, they ought to be easily confirmed from a number of external and unrelated sources. The quote should be removed, and not put back unless verified.

Unfortunately, a lot of the article looks like this. We have a bunch of statements about this and that, a bunch of external links, and no references / footnotes section at all. Given that the content of the article is partly controversial (or, at the very least, talking about subjects that an average person might not be informed about), a liberal application of WP:CITE can only improve it.

I'll go through the article and add request for citations. Some of this stuff ought to be easily cited, if I have more time, I'll look at that too.

Also, I'm noticing that the article is currently undergoing heavy editing. Probably needed, although I'm not sure if it's good to just remove huge sections without comment, but either way, people, WP:V! The new versions aren't cited either! //Amphis 09:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Few words about quality of the article and politics around it

This article lacks a lot of important information, like broader information on status and presentation, including aspects like workplace, disclosure and coming out; sexual orientation section is poor. External links can be significantly extended too. On top of this, the article, which discusses very sensible subject, became a constant battleground and seems some people try to politicize it, instead of making it a good source of information. Usage of highly offensive terms, terms that nullify or don't respect male identity of transmen, ignorant or transphobic slurs (e.g. "bearded woman", "lesbian transman") is not only inappropriate, but is also harmful. So please avoid this unneeded and pointless war of words. Lets leave this space for pure information. Thru the night 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


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.