Talk:Transphobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transphobia 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.

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives
*Talk:Transphobia/Archive 1: 3rd August 2002 – 11th September 2005


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)

[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).

Because nobody's gone there yet. I agree, it would be a good section to include (though Janice Raymond is the name that leaps to mind for me). This is Wikipedia -- if you can see something that belongs in the article that isn't there, and you're prepared to follow Wikipedia guidelines, go to it! Just a friendly word of advice, though: Based on nearly two decades of experience with online feminism, I advise you to source impeccably, follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines without even the slightest appearance of a cut corner, and carry an entry suit along with you.  :-) --7Kim 06:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph is an excellent start, however it needs rewritten to be made NPOV and rigorously sourced.
"Germaine Greer is notorious among trans women as one of the feminist vigilantes who went on an anti-transsexual rampage in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Along with feminist academic Janice Raymond, author of the notorious book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, Greer went on a witch-hunt to find and “out” stealthy postop women.
Raymond and Greer (and their ideological followers) especially targeted trans women who had successfully obtained good employment. They went after these women without remorse, in efforts to publicly defame them, cost them their livelihoods, and force them into social marginalization (which Raymond and Greer apparently thought they deserved).
Physicist Rachel Padman of Cambridge University became one of Greer’s special targets in 1996 (Greer ruthlessly outed and attacked Rachel in the UK tabloids). Fortunately, Rachel was really well-liked at Cambridge, and was able to survive Greer’s wrath.
Although most stealthy women in academe and the professions escaped such exposure, fear of being exposed by the Raymond-Greer witch-hunt kept many successful trans women in deep stealth during the 1980’s and 1990’s. As a result, the stories of many successful transitions in those decades never became public. " - Lynn Conway
88.96.135.14 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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)

If African-Americans were often portrayed as the villains in film and someone called it racist, I think the previous points would justify that racism too. The only excuse can be coincidence. I'm making numbers up, but if .1% of people are transgender and 5% of movie serial killers are trans, we're beyond coincidence. But I agree that without a good reference, the section shouldn't be here. --Ephilei 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias / POV

This article reads as though it was written by a tranny who is active in the fight against discrimination. There is no talk of why such discrimination exits, how prevalent it is and why it might be justified.

I personally find it disgusting but that doesn't mean people should be prohibited from being "who they are". Some may find me disgusting and thats okay. There is no way I would hire a transgender for a job if I were looking for a new employee. It weirds people out, both customers and other employees. I would loose business and employees. Stop trying to cram it down everyone's throat. --Jon in California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.181 (talk)

It would be important to point out that at one time similar sentiments were held against blacks, and women. Just because something is not currently culturally tolerated does not mean you have a right to refuse them a job if they were capable of performing that job. There do exist certain protections to employers to account for customer interaction, and business appropriateness. As a result, dress codes may be enforced based on gender if there is a compelling business need, also, the company may have a case for refusing employment to an individual whose appearance would have a gross impact upon their ability to perform their job. That being said, there are a lot of cases where transgender people can perform just as well as anyone else, and in the everyday and incidental encounters that they may have with customers would not impact their job. If someone with a tatoo covering their face, and a nose ring, and huge loops through their ears is reasonable to serve as a cashier at a fast food place, then there is no reason why a transgendered individual not be permitted and afforded the same opportunity.
That all said, a transgender person is better off not working for someone who's as maliciously upset with them as you are. Honestly, you may not even know if you've hired a transgendered individual at your company. Just because someone is transgendered does not mean that in any way that they are visibly gender variant. --Puellanivis 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that transgenderism (is that the word?) is something that is going to just progressively gain acceptance like blacks (no one was ever really repulsed by women). Even with homosexuality, even if many consider it immoral, most people feel that it is not a choice. This is not the view most people hold about transgenders, and I think the fact that people don't know whether or not they fall under male or female and just a general confusion will always result in a stigma attached to them. Gtbob12 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article Transphobia, not for discussing your personal views. --Alynna (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge Transprejudice into Transphobia. -- ~Eliz81(C) 07:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the content and references of Transprejudice be merged into here, and that article redirect here. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Transprejudice is at best a synonym and at worst a neologism. I don't know if there's really anything in the transprejudice article to merge into here, or whether it would be better to simply make it a redirect to transphobia. --AliceJMarkham 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There are a couple of references that should be considered for saving as well. Benjiboi 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. References definitely worth considering, maybe also mention the word "transprejudice" as a synonym here. --Alynna 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I can't see the distinction between the terms in any real way.Kootenayvolcano 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Not exactly the same, not similar enough that all their contents will be identical. --Ephilei 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The "transprejudice" article specifically mentions that it may be manifested just like "homophobia". There's no reason to consider these terms as different for the purpose of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puellanivis (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject The terms 'transprejudice' and 'transphobia' and the underlying attitudes these terms represent may very well be distinct, especially when considered across cultures. Just as 'homophobia' and 'homoprejudice' may be distinct (see Logan, C. R. (1996). Homophobia? No, homoprejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 31(3), 31-53. A number of researchers have challenged the validity of using the term “homophobia” to describe anti-homosexual attitudes and beliefs (for example, see Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond "Homophobia": Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 1(2), 6-24. And as Herek suggests, "scholars and researchers alike require a more nuanced vocabulary in order to understand the psychological, social, and cultural processes that underlie the oppression of sexual minorities" (p. 14). In Chinese culture, for example, the use of transphobia (bing sing hung gui zing) to describe the negative reaction of heterosexual (or 'heteronormative') people to transgender people is almost universally rejected, as 'phobia' (hong gui zing) infers an established clinical condition onto the individual who simply may hold negative, even prejudicial, attitudes towards transgender people, but attitudes that may not be considered as 'phobic'. The term transprejudice may be part of that nuanced vocubulary. For the sake of this discussion, perhaps we could explore Herek's 'sexual prejudice', Logan's 'homoprejudice', and the conceptualization of 'transprejudice' as distinct terms that conceptualize anti-gay and anti-transgender/transsexual attitudes. I certainly don't see how 'prejudice' and 'phobia' can be synonyms, nor do I see how transprejudice is a neologism of transphobia.202.189.104.26 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Transphobia is a a non clinical term... it doesn't refer in the first place to a clinical phobia, and just like homophobia to predjudice against homosexuals, (another non-clinical term) it usually refers to predjudice against trans people, and is the generally accepted term for it... just as the article itself states. the way in which phobia and predjudice can be used as synonyms is described by the page Phobia - terms indicating prejudice or class discrimination as referenced by the article. Crimsone 19:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, if homoprejudice does take off as a separate term to Homophobia that would be reason to consider keeping both these articles but homoprejudice doesn't have an article for us to even compare and contrast. 202.189.104.26 does have a point that if we do the merge, which I still support, that it's referred in the lede that it's inclusion of transprejudice is an umbrella term or some variation. Benjiboi 06:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Absolutely, though the lede already states that the word transphobia refers to prejudice against trans people. Crimsone 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If this constitutes sufficient support here for the move, I will gladly make it. ~Eliz81(C) 08:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For homoprejudice, see Logan, C. R. (1996). Homophobia? No, homoprejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 31(3), 31-53., as well as the more recent work by Schiffman, J. B., DeLucia-Waack, J. L., & Gerrity, D. A. (2006). An Examination of the Construct of Homophobia Prejudice or Phobia? Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(1), 75-93.202.189.98.187 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment well, it's very likely that all of the terms are acceptable, and used by one scientific or medical or whatever organization or another for some purpose. The interest here is that the common person would expect the words "homophobia" and by extention of that usage "transphobia". The only real reason to have two articles, is if they concern different material, which I don't think they substantially do. --Puellanivis 01:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment naturally. :) --Puellanivis 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe that we have essentially reached a reasonable consensus position that Transprejudice should be merged into, and redirected to, Transphobia on the condition that the term Transprejudice remain in the article. It should be noted that, if adequate distinction becomes available in the future, it might then be split back out into a separate article. In order to ensure that the term is not subsequently inadvertantly removed from the article, I propose that a hidden comment such as <!-- When the article Transprejudice was merged into this article, consensus was reached that that term must remain in this article. Please do not remove reference to the term Transprejudice from this aticle --> be placed close to the top of the article. If there are no further objections, I'd suggest that User:Eliz81 or whoever else is enthusiastic about it may complete the merge. --AliceJMarkham 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Propose to start MiszaBot archiving. Any objections?

Noting that there are now quite a few old sections in this talk page that are no longer being actively discussed, I propose to enable archiving by User:MiszaBot I, with age of last change set to 30 days (ie archive a section 30 days after it is last added to). Any objections? Would 60 or 90 days be preferrred? --AliceJMarkham 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would. bot archiving wipes away all talk items whether resolved or not. I would suggest simply archiving old talk threads to keep this page tidy for those using it but not on auto. Benjiboi 06:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
MiszaBot only archives a section when the last edit has reached the specified age. If it was set to say 60 or 90 days, that means that no discussion has been added to that section for that many days. Is it still current then, or has it already died due to lack of interest? It's alway possible to bring the same subject up some time later. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm uneasy about it as there are reasons someone might post something that would help an article but then it's never followed up on or the idea is too advanced for where the article is at the moment as they are organic. Likewise pure drivel or resolved items clutter the page and i welcome their archiving to help communication. I think on project pages and user talk auto-archiving can be quite useful but I remain uneased as to their application on article talk. Having stated that if everyone else wants it then oh well. Benjiboi 08:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I vote no on this one... this page is pretty slow anyway, and it really takes no real effort at all to move the page to the next archive number, update the archive box, and copy any active discussions back to the talk page (or even link to them if needs be). It's not even nessecary (and some might argue even counterproductive) to archive a talk page that isn't that large anyway (such as this one isn't). Crimsone (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination doesn't need "Transphobia"

It's not always transphobia that can cause discrimination against a transgender employee. There are a number of systemic biases that can cause issues where even though applied to all employees, creates an unfair burden for transgendered individuals. For instance, establishing strict working hours, which would cause the transgender employee to be held accountable for hours that that employee needs to receive treatment. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is? What needs to change in the article and how? In your opinion. Benjiboi 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The scope of transphobia encompasses far more than employment-related issues: for example, bigotry and prejudice, healthcare issues, and violent crime, just to name a few. krimpet⟲ 07:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
My point was trying to state that discrimination against trans people is not necessarily transphobia. Laws have side-effects, and some of those side-effects may discriminate against transgender people without having any intention to do so. Transphobia to me is specifically narrow to intentional actions, unconscious or otherwise. Calling someone "transphobic" before they are even aware of transsexuality, or their concerns, is placing blame for being ignorant (as in not knowing, not as the insult). And may entirely end up being not the case. I talked with a guy a lot, and we had an attraction, and when I told him that I was a transsexual, he said, "what's that?" We ended up dating for about a month, and then he broke up with me because I "deserve better" than him. The guy was entirely non-transphobic and was very much of the opinion that I was absolutely a girl, and no doubts, and if other people don't see that, then they're, in his words, "stupid". Before he knew me, he may have unintentionally made an action that impacted a transsexual, but because he didn't even know about transsexuals, it would be difficult to say that that action would have been "transphobic". Against "the trans agenda" is not always transphobia. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Trying to re-digest this. I think you're stating that some transphobia actually is either purposely or unintentionally discrimination against disabled people who may need time off for medical reasons, etc. Is that on target? Benjiboi 08:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you're addressing me, as if you were it would appear that there was a massive miscommunication. Assuming you were adressing me: No, that's not what I'm trying to say. It's called a "systemic bias", which need not be caused by transphobia, or any intentional measure of fear, bigotry, etc against any particular group. The situation arrises that a systemic bias can present a situation where trans (for therapy, etc) need perform exceptional steps in order to be permitted to attend medical appointments, or perhaps even not permitted at all, e.g. allowances for going to a medical appointment may be permitted for physical issues only, as GID is still a mental disorder, it fails to pass the muster to get permission. There are also situations where a law, entirely unintentionally, impacts severly upon a protected group. An English-only policy is a systemic bias against people who are unable to learn a new language no matter how hard they try, and the courts agreed that it would be, but that such a systemic bias was allowable only under the case that English-only was absolutely necessary to perform their job. Such a company that has a legitimate English-only policy would have a systemic bias against most foreign nationals. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, see what you mean now. I think a similar thing could be stated for almost all the discrimination related phobia articles that sometimes perceived intentions could actually be systematic bias. I would support some wording to be placed in the article if it hasn't already. Benjiboi 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I'll try and look through the article and ensure that it's not ascribing any unintentional, unintended, or even most earnestly regretful actions that impact only transsexuals. I will admit, it's hard to come up with a good example. :( --Puellanivis (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transphobia in the bisexual community?

I know that this sort of transphobia certainly happens, however, I'm wondering if it might differ sufficiently from gay and lesbian transphobia in order to be appropriately placed in its own section? Thoughts of others? I really only know of a few differences, so I don't know if they're significant to break out, or simply enough to add a paragraph covering them more exactly. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination happens in every group and transphobia can even be found wihin the trans communities. Instead of nuancing it towards each L-G-B and T I think it would serve the readers best to explain that it does exist and here is a discussion of it. For every instance we state that such and such is in the gay male or lesbian communities can be countered with well here it is over here as well. We know it exists we should simply talk about it dispassionately enough to express the ideas needed. Benjiboi 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

Does being unwilling to be romantically involved with someone who is transgendered amount to transphobia? I read an editorial in the San Francisco Cronicle that seemed to insinuate as much. Not that the threat of being classified as transphobic is going to make me change my position (that I would never even consider dating a transgender, pre or post-op). Just curious Gtbob12 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, being unattracted to transpeople doesn't make one transphobic, any more than being unattracted to women makes one misogynistic. However, your comments on this page make it clear that you are transphobic anyway. --Alynna (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That said, if you were to fall deeply in love with a transsexual (as opposed to a transvestite or an otherwise transgender person - just for simplicity of analogy more than anything), and had been involved in a relationship with him or her for some time without sex(there are both transmen and transwomen), and then when she/he makes sure out of respect for you that you know of his/her previous sex you annul the whole relationship and completely disown the person, well, that could be considered a tad on the transphobic side (as opposed to remaining good friends with that person even though you felt unable to have a sexual relationship with him or her, which wouldn't be transphobic). Reason being, both before and after telling of that painful past, he's/she's still the same person. Crimsone (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be important to clarify this. The people who refuse to date a transgendered person can be put into two groups. Those who are transphobic, and those who are not. Those who are transphobic are disgusted exclusively by the idea that a person is trans, rather than anything else. Having posted a personal as an experiment, I stated that I was trans, and included a photo of a non-trans friend. Some responses I got back were from people that are obviously transphobic (with or without varying degrees of homophobia.) One response was "you're hot, too bad I'm not gay." Another told me "the picture is attractive, but I feel oddly uneased by looking at it knowing that you're trans." Any feeling of "unease" that the person was feeling was exclusively their own fabrication. There was nothing in the picture to evoke a trans response, except context. These people found the picture to be attractive, but refused to consider dating solely for the reason that they were told that she was trans. There is no justifiable "they're simply unattracted to transwomen", but rather only an unjustifiable "they are repulsed by the idea of transwomen." Now, to be honest, I'm dating (on/off) a guy who does not find me attractive because I'm trans, however, we've been together on and off for awhile, as he struggles with his emotional attraction to me competing against his physical interests. It's not being unattracted to a trans person that makes the unwillingness to date be transphobia, it's the absolute refusal to even consider the idea that makes it transphobic. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur, both your explanations are more clear/accurate. --Alynna (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)