Talk:Transwoman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Talk archives for Transwoman (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 2 >>

Contents

new entry (or rather category)

I figured that the entry needed some clarity and focus so I started a new entry, "Transgendered (Male-bodied)", a catch-all category for drag queens, kathooeys, male crossdressers and so forth... including transgender(ed)/transsexual women. links to specific entries (for example on trans women) can get collected there. to this end I edited out some of the vague and confusing wording in this entry to narrow this entry a bit to transsexual/transgender(ed) women.

male-bodied

since yesterday I see that the entry has gotten edited to remove any reference to transwomen as male-bodied on the grounds that many transsexuals "are no longer male-bodied".

male-bodied people don't nessecarily have cocks. male-bodied people don't even nessecarily lack breasts.

if you go to the entry that I wrote you will see that the definition of male-bodied (a term I adopted and did not create myself) means a person assigned male at birth (this includes, BTW, intersexed males labelled male at birth). transwomen *by definition*, got labelled male at birth.

now a transwoman may have a XX chromosomes (some transwomen do have... like I said, some intersexed people count as male-bodied). she may have had SRS. she may stand five foot one. he may pass as female every single day of her life. however, the definition of male-bodied still applies to her. extreme example, I know, but that sort of indicates what I mean by male-bodied.

(judged male at birth) = (male-bodied). (not judged male at birth) = (NOT male bodied)

this definition includes *some* intersexed people as well as *all* transwomen (again, by definition).

as an intersexed trans woman myself I don't want to cause anyone offense.

Describing transwoman as "male-bodied" is offensive to some. Also, that is an interesting definition of male-bodied that I'd like to see some credible reference on - the obvious definition would be people with male bodies - which is obviously not the case for transwomen who've had surgery or hormones. Also, in what way is a category for "Trangender (male-bodied)", under any definition, useful? If classifying transgender people by any characteristic (which seems to be futile and unnecessary), surely the gender they identify as would be more useful and less offensive?
Also, please sign comments on talk pages using ~~~~ - this will expand to your username (or IP) and the date and time. --Mairi 18:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
okay, then natal male. when I get around to that I will change the category. natal male doens't really roll off the tongue that well, though.
since "transgender" can pretty much mean anything nowadays, "transgendered woman" or "transgendered man" can also mean pretty much anything depending on context (or whim) a confusing state of affairs which ideally we can hope to remedy, rather than multiply double meanings and obscurity. to give a concrete example of what I mean, I picked up a print volume entitled CASSELL'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF QUEER MYTH, SYMBOL AND SPIRIT. entry after entry merely described certain social roles as "transgendered" with no indication of whether this referred to MTF or FTM, much less how this behavior manifested, whether in dress, behavior or the pronouns used by themselves (in cultures where you have gendered first person pronouns) or others. obviously you cannot put *all* information down but it would help to have some.
you may consider clarification as useless but scholars and social scientists as well as layfolk trying to get simple, clear information do find them useful. encylopedias do (ideally) aim for clarity and ease of understanding. even though I don't like it I use the term transgendered here, simply because other people use it and it enables other people to understand what I mean. many people will come to Wikipedia with no knowledge at all of the subject matter. I want them to come away with greater understanding, not perplexity and confusion. as far as signing my name, I have no username (maybe I will get one later, keep losing the ones I have).
and thank you for correcting me on the "male-bodied" thing. I did indeed look up the definition and find that it co-incided with your definition. -- November 13, 2005, 5:30 p.m.

I moved the sexual orientation page elsewhere

in readiness for the time (I hope, not too far in the future) where the transwoman entry has some meat on its bones, I gave the sexual orientation topic its own page.

Same-sex attraction among genetic women

Have any of you considered that you may greatly underestimate the proportion of genetic women who are bisexual? You seem to want to believe that bisexuality (and lesbianism) are extremely rare among genetic women. I don't buy that assumption. I've seen some pretty strong evidence that at least some significant degree of same-sex attraction is nothing unusual among women in general. --Angela

Sexual orientation

Ms. Driver keeps changing:
"The sexual orientation of transwomen is very varied. The number of lesbian transwomen roughly equals that of transwomen who prefer male partners. Many also consider themselves bisexual or asexual. into:
 The sexual orientation of transwomen is roughly the same of non-transwomen.

Alledgedly I am wrong - however, these rough numbers have been confirmed by all groups I ever asked or heard about. In fact, in many groups there is a slight overhang of lesbian transwomen. So unless Ms. Driver is able to provide some believable statistics (believable, please), I have to assume that she is wrong once again. I would like further comments, so she can't accuse me of whatever she thinks of at the moment. -- AlexR 00:02, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I changed it once. Second, you now have statistics listed at the bottom of the page to read for yourself. Maybe you should stop assuming I am wrong and acknowledge that I know more about women and transsexuality than you do. JulieADriver

As long as your edits retain the same "qualitiy" as the edits you did before, it is not very likely I will consider you even knowledgeable, not to mention an "expert".
Take a look at the pages you cited:

  • [1] says, that according to the surveys cited, about 70% are heterosexual, about 11% are lesbians, and about 19% are bi- or nonsexual. That alone would not be the same as with ciswomen, and those statistics are the ones I consider less reliable, see below.
  • [2] The second study has the incredibly large group of 15 participans, 9 ftMs, 6 mtFs. A bit small for general claims, but: "The sexual orientations articulated by respondents were quite varied, with a high proportion (twelve out of fifteen) presently identifying as bi-, pan- or homosexual." Not exactly a number you would expect from a study of 15 cisgendered people, really.
To be blunt, the second study is total nonsense. There's a 41% margin of error in the MtF group. There's no way you can take any meaningful conclusion from that study, except that it was a complete failure. --Eequor 01:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

So even the sources you provided state explicitly that you are flatout wrong.
And the sources on the first page are most likely inherently flawed - it has been only rather recently been acceptable for trans*-people to be not completely straight afterwards, for transmen even later than for transwomen. Therefore, research that older than a few years probably did simply not get the truth as answers, but what people thought the reseachers, who all-too-often are also the "doorkeepers" to letters of recommendation etc., wanted to hear. Even today this is still done, therefore one has to assume that every reseach that is done together with treatment or letters or similar is flawed. No matter, even if they are flawed, they still show the rate of non-heterosexual transwomen is significantly higher than that of non-heterosexual ciswomen.

So, Ms. Expert, maybe you should do some further reading; but you will have a hard time finding many references from the past 10 years that state that these numbers for cis- and transwomen (or men) are even roughly similar. -- AlexR 01:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Sexuality among the transsexual and transgender populations is not exactly something that has been heavily researched. Those two pages were all that I could find. If you still insist on proving me wrong, do some research on your part. JulieADriver

Since the pages you cited yourself already proved you wrong, why should I bother? My information comes from simply asking around in various groups and from counceling myself or from other councelers. Also, every quickpoll among trans*-groups shows roughly these results; an approximately similar number of lesbian and straight transwomen, and a somewhat varying number of bi-, pan- and asexual transwomen. That's something you could do yourself, instead of keeping inserting information you have proved yourself to be false. -- AlexR 21:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I am growing tired of this stupid conflict. I have never personally attacked you, yet you continue to attack me. I am demanding you cease personally attacking me. If you do not comply, I will request mediation --JulieADriver 21:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, the first linked page very clearly shows a strong correspondence between the sexual orientations of transgendered women and the orientations of the general population. --Eequor 01:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

One thing you have to keep in mind is the inaccuracy of extrapolating information from samples as small as those in the studies referenced. In a sample size of 170, the margin of error is around 8%. A single person can make a large difference in such a study: the true percentage of lesbians in the transwoman population may be anywhere from 3% to 19%. --Eequor 01:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

If the rate were indeed that low, why would so many groups of transwomen (the full-time transitioning kind, not cross-dressers etc) report the rate of lesbian transwomen to be about equal to the rate of transwomen attracted to men? -- AlexR 03:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Because people tend to notice novelty more than they do normality. If someone thinks it should be unusual to find a large lesbian population, they will tend to only remember when they encounter lesbians and forget all the occasions when they encountered heterosexuals. It's a common error. --Eequor 04:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
But there is absolutely nothing novel about this - it has been a consistent picture for the past couple of years. And I am not talking about meetings single persons, I am talking about support groups reporting about their own members; plus some councelers or doctors who keep statistics. I don't think that could possibly count as novelty. 10 years ago, it was a novelty, but that was a decade ago. I also completely fail to understand what you hope to gain by twisting those statistics to show something they just don't show by any reading, or generally by insisting that transwomen (or transsexual women) do not differ in their sexual orientation from ciswomen. There might be a number of reasons for that, but probably none of these would invalidate the gender identity of any transwoman. (In fact, I don't think any would, but given the extremely complex matter, I guess nobody could be absolutely and positively certain of that.)
I can't help it, but this debate is surely feeling somewhat surreal by now. No offense intended, just in case somebody wishes to read one into that sentence, or any sentence I wrote. -- AlexR 04:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
The statistics show that it is uncommon to find lesbians in any population. This creates a perception (correct) that being a lesbian transwoman is an unusual condition (a novelty). This perception, however, leads to a general over-noticing of lesbians, and due to this overrepresentation a belief is generated (incorrectly) that lesbians are in fact common. As this belief propogates, it is reinforced by the discovery that other individuals hold the same belief. This is the sort of phenomenon that leads people to believe in UFOs, ghosts, and other such things, regardless of any actual scientific analysis.
Without any solid evidence to show that the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals in the transsexual population is near 1:1, with statistics showing that it very much is not, and with no proposed reason why transsexuals should differ, the only logical conclusion is that the distribution of sexual orientations of transsexuals closely matches that of the population as a whole. See Occam's Razor.
I'm not hoping to gain anything, I'm just very skeptical of the idea that a difference exists, in the absence of proof. --Eequor 05:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I've got to say, before I begin, that I've been trying to stay out of this spat, and that if anything, I've been in agreement with Julie. That said, I'm with AlexR on this one. This suggestion that the numbers are about equal with transwomen is, I must say, new to me. From both personal experience and extensive reading, just about everything I have ever encountered on the subject has suggested that the ratio is about 1:1. The same would be reflected in those I have known personally over the years. Ambivalenthysteria 11:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
That goes for my personal experiences as well. If we can't find hard numbers to back this up, we certainly do need to note that it is a common observation. Morwen 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

(I am moving this to the left again, for reasons of legibility. Also, it is mainly an answer to Eequor, not the last two statements.)
I am sorry, but these "equal" claims remain absurd. This is not reasoning, and certainly it is not Occam's Razor to ignore evidence because Occam's Razor is not exactly in favour of It shouldn't be, therefore it can't be. To compare people's self-reported sexual orientation to the believe in UFOs and ghosts it unusual, to say the least, and something I would under any other circumstance consider a particularly nasty case of discrimination. -- AlexR 13:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I didn't equate lesbians with UFOs. I argued that the perpetuation of a questionable belief in the prevalence of lesbians is similar to the perpetuation of the belief in UFOs.
Since I didn't equate lesbians with UFOs, that is a red herring you are putting up. Also, I am sorry, but unlike UFOs, which I have never seen (and don't think I ever will see), I have seen *many* lesbian transwomen, and so have Ambivalenthysteria and Morwen. -- AlexR 14:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Whatever are you talking about? Who said anything about the nonexistence of lesbians? --Eequor 15:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Occam's Razor instructs us to prefer the conclusion which requires the fewest assumptions. The idea that lesbians are very common in the transwoman population requires one to assume that there is something different about the sexuality of transsexuals (which I would think is something you do not want to argue), and also that the error in all of the referenced studies lies on the high side of the mean (which is quite unlikely), or that every study used a sample unrepresentative of the population (possible, but strange). The conclusion that transgendered and cisgendered are similar requires only that one believe the transgendered are more or less identical in nature to those of the corresponding gender in the cisgendered population (which is something this community works very hard to convince people of).
The damaging argument is the argument that transsexuals are different somehow. Why would you want to encourage such a conclusion? --Eequor 13:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that is the core of the matter, isn't it. It does not matter that the sexuality of transwomen does differ from that of ciswomen, all that matters is that this has to be hidden so that transwomen look less "different". I am fully aware that some transsexual women try to convince people that they are not at all different from ciswomen, but that is one particular point of view, and not neutral at all. (Mind you, I am not saying that transwomen are not "real" women or anything, just that there are some differences - which is obvious to begin with.) As you said yourself: requires only that one believe. Sorry, but the Wikipedia is not about believe, it is about facts. And I think it is rather stupid to assume that you do anybody a favour by marginalising lesbian transwomen; it will not boost acceptance of trans*-people, but it will not only hurt those who are marginalised, and also provide those unaccepting of trans*-people with arguments for discrimination against all transpeople. ("See, they are lying to us!") -- AlexR 14:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Even the statistics cited show that whatever it is, it is not the same as in the ciswomen population. Therefore, that claim cannot be made, and what is in the article now is NPOV and frankly, nothing but a political agenda, one that hurts lesbian transwomen by marginalising them. Are you sure that is what you want? -- AlexR 13:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The statistics show nothing of the sort. Their samples are too small to draw such conclusions from. The only meaningful conclusion is that whatever the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals is, homosexuality is comparatively rare. This is what one finds in the cisgendered population. To have any idea of whether the ratio is significantly different, we would need results from studies involving several hundred people.
Yes, well, one would need the same studies to support the claim that the rate is similar to those of ciswomen. Not to mention that I did cite a study involving several hunderds of people. I have regretted very much and many times that it is unpublished, but I have no reason whatever to assume that what I have been told is false. -- AlexR
This is an encyclopedia. It is important that contradictory claims have proper references to back them up. One does not create a reference article based on hearsay. In the absence of documentation, there is no way to verify accuracy. --Eequor 15:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
What harm can it possibly do to state that lesbians among transwomen are uncommon? It is well known that lesbians among the cisgendered are uncommon, yet they do not suffer because of this. It simply has to be recognized that homosexuality exists among the transgendered. It is, of course, very important to convince the medical community that this is true. --Eequor 13:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Of course cisgendered lesbians suffer from discrimination, and would suffer less so were it more common. And the harm done is that it marginalises lesbian transwomen, thereby discriminating against them, and that it provies the public with a false view of transwomen, and people who are speaking out against trans*-people with arguments to do so. Besides, the Wikipedia is not a place for false statements, whatever their intend. -- AlexR
See Verifiability. Can you show me that the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals among transsexuals is near 1:1 is not a false statement? --Eequor 15:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me state once more why I say that the number of lesbian and straight transwomen is about 1:1:

  • I have been part of the transsexual/transgender community for 9 years. (And coming from the "strictly transsexual" side, too.) Even back then the number of transwomen living in lesbian relationships was at least as big as transwomen in straight relationships, although, at that time and by pretty much the same "It shouldn't be, therefore it can't be" reasoning, many claimed to be just "waiting for Mr. Right".
  • I have been active in counceling, organising self-help groups and political advocacy for 7 years. I have met many people from many groups, and in the beginning, when non-straigt transpeople began to come out in large numbers, we all were surprised by the high number of non-straight transsexual and transgender people. (Again, I am talking only about people changing their gender role completely, and the majority of these transwomen can be considered transsexual and consider themselves transsexual). In the beginning, we all were very much surprised when we started counting. That is counting, as in 1,2,3,..., not assuming as in "Wow, that were a lot of us/them, must be about half". All those reports give a ratio that is approximately 1:1.
  • I have also compared notes with other people active in counceling, several of whom also count. Guess what - they give about 1:1 as ratio.
  • Both of the above I have also done explicitly with people from other countries, both Europe and the US. Same picture. (Compare the last two statements above.) The rate for gay transmen varries somewhat in southern Europe, but not for transwomen. And the most recent reports from those countries show the number of gay transmen catching up, too.
  • I know a doctor who is involved in writing letters of recommendation for surgery and name change and who has been keeping quite extensive statistics for about 20 years; I have been working with him on guidelines for such letter. For the reasons cited above already, these statistics are inevitably biased towards straight transpeople. (The bias coming from transpeople claiming to be straight because they are afraid of not getting their letters if they do not claim to be straight.) Still - for the last few years, the number of lesbian transwomen to straight transwomen is, according to their self-report in his practice is approximately 40:60, and he himself guesses that it is probably more 1:1, but he is aware of that fear and unless there are reasons to doubt other claims of a particular person he lets it pass. Over those 20 years, and remember the bias, the rate is 1:2. -- AlexR 13:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
This is only anecdotal evidence. Where is your documentation and scientific research? --Eequor 13:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Where is yours? Not to mention that I did mention a scientific study right above your statement. -- AlexR
[3] is sufficient documentation for my position. Where is the study you mention documented? --Eequor 15:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
A problem with your approach is that you are assuming that the set of people you have encountered forms a group representational of the transgender population as a whole. My suspicion is that you, yourself, encounter homosexuals more often than would be expected of an average person. A possible conclusion is that homosexual transsexuals are more likely to attend support groups than heterosexuals. --Eequor 13:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Just why would lesbian transwomen more often than straight transwomen:
  • need letters of recommendation for surgery or name change
  • contact councelors more often, not about any personal problems, but about plain stuff like "Where do I find a doctor", "How do I do a name change", "How do I deal with health insurance" or "How do I keep my job" or similar problems, most of which are completely unrelated to sexual orientation
  • attend support groups, which also first and foremost supply this kind of information?
I am sorry, but what you are saying does not make sense at all, rather, it is you who is making a statement that is completely unsupported by anything but a It shouldn't be, therefore it cannot be POV. -- AlexR 14:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
You already said The bias coming from transpeople claiming to be straight because they are afraid of not getting their letters if they do not claim to be straight. This indicates there is a difficulty, perceived and possibly real, for homosexual transsexuals to "jump through the hoops" needed for their transition. Thus they are more likely to need help in finding sympathetic and understanding medical professionals. --Eequor 15:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

As for the reason why the number of non-straight transpeople is so high, that is an excellent question, and if one disregards the decidedly strange theories of Blanchard, the only theory I have heard several times (but with no scientific backup I am aware of) is that people just have such a dislike of a particular type of anatomy (that of their birth sex) that they cannot possibly connect it to love and/or sexual attraction. While that makes sense, it is not proven, and most likely, even if it is true, not the only reason; sexual orientation is an extremely complex matter even in cisgendered people, and probably a lot more so in trans*-people. But then, there is absolutely no reason proven yet as to why transgender people, or gay and lesbian people, do exist, yet that does not keep them from existing, either.

However, if some people still keep insisting of keeping the "about the same as in the general population" part in, which is obviously false and a claim made for whatever reasons which are definitely NPOV, I can only propose taking out that sentence completely and not say anything about the matter, since there seems to be no scientific evidence. And instead of keeping completely unsubstantiated and false claimes that are made for nothing but political reasons (I am assuming political reasons here, because the only other possible reason is active discrimination), or having an edit war, there should be no statements about the matter at all. -- AlexR 13:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is NPOV in its current form. I've acknowledged both sides equally. --Eequor 13:43, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, acknowledging something verified by very many people very many times equaly to a political claim completely unsubstantiated is decidedly POV and therefore unacceptable. -- AlexR 14:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Acknowledging that there are two positions is in no way POV. I'm completely baffled as to why you believe there are not two positions and why you insist on trying to marginalize the position you do not agree with. That is POV behavior. --Eequor 15:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm totally confused about what sort of political agenda you suppose me to have. --Eequor 16:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. While I wrote the above, Ambivalenthysteria and Morwen backed up what I said. Given their statement, I want to propose once more finding an NPOV version of the bit on sexual orientation. However, if none can be found, I still think it should go out completely until somebody finds "scientific evidence", preferably not the kind biased by either fear on the side of transwomen or bias on the side of the person collecting it. -- AlexR 13:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The moderations made since I last posted are an improvement, but perhaps this should be chopped out altogether. As it is, it marginalises lesbian transwomen by claiming that they are uncommon (among transwomen) - when they are most certainly not. I'm not one to argue that the sexuality of transpeople is "different" - as a transwoman myself, I'd be insulting myself to argue that. And I spend more time than I'd like to having to try to convince people that we are, indeed, the same as everyone else. Yet I think in this case, it's patently obvious that, in terms of lesbian-to-straight numbers, there IS a difference between transwomen and cisgendered women. I don't know why this is so, and frankly, I don't really care. But to tell a mistruth for the sake of making transpeople look more "normal", in my opinion, is just plain wrong. Ambivalenthysteria 13:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, where is the documented evidence that lesbians are common? The burden of proof is upon you. The referenced statistics may not say much, but they do not say that lesbians are common. --Eequor 14:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
And you think that nothing I said, and what Ambivalenthysteria and Morwen said, too, constitures proof? Well, in that case, I think really the only solution is to remove that sentence altogehter. Even the "two positions" version is decidedly NPOV, because frankly, only Julie and Eequor maintain that POV, and therefore, it hardly needs to be in the article. -- AlexR 14:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I think in the interests of peace and friendship we should accept that paragraph (if only as a temporary solution). It doesn't say anything actually false. Maybe better wording could be agreed on. Morwen 14:41, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. From what I see, we're evenly divided. We might not be exactly representative of the population, but it seems reasonable to assume that division extends beyond Wikipedia. --Eequor 14:52, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Once again, I have to stand with AlexR. It's a view that I've never heard of apart from you two. What's more, is that I can't see any evidence to back up that statement, which is right out of left field anyway. Even if we were to use the statistics mentioned above (which can hardly be reliable due to the small sample size), the data there still indicates a ratio that is multiple times that of cisgendered women. Ambivalenthysteria 15:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
The statistics certainly are not reliable, but even considering their margin of error it is ridiculous to claim that they show a ratio of 1:1. --Eequor 15:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I never claimed they show a ratio of 1:1. However, even without taking into account the margin of error, they certainly do not show the same prevalence among transwomen as ciswomen - rather, they show it as several times more. Ambivalenthysteria 02:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I find this discussion ridiculous. I've requested mediation. --Eequor 16:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The mediation failed, because, as far as I was told, that Eequor lost interest. She refused to even state her point in the debate. The mediator, Cimon, was quite confused by that, and so were, again, as far as I was told, the other mediators. I was quite surprised, too; after all, Eequor had just requested mediation.
Since I was both busy with other things (including the German Wikipedia association) and also quite unsure how to proceed, it took me a while to make up my mind as to whether I should touch this article again. Finally, I thought it just had to be done. I will however request mediation myself, and arbitration if mediations fails again, if the same debate is started again. -- AlexR

Redirect?

Seems to me it should probably #REDIRECT to Transsexual, which is very comprehensive. Wouldn't this article just duplicate that one horribly? Martin 01:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Most certainly not to Transsexual, because transwomen are not just transsexual. If at all, Transgender might be to article to redirect to. OTOH, the articles transwoman and transman were written particularly so that matters pertaining just one direction can be put there. Therefore, the article should remain; and the matter in mediation would be the same, anyway, whethere here or there. -- AlexR 01:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Most certainly not Transgender, as that would breach the identity naming guidelines, and would be seen as pretty offensive by a fair portion of transwomen - myself included. Ambivalenthysteria 02:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Err, excuse me, but putting it under transsexual would be offensive to the other transwomen - and it would breach the very same guidelines. However, since I spoke out against a redirect anyway, I think this debate is purely theoretical; it is another reason to keep an article instead of a redirect, though. -- AlexR 03:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
On that we agree; it is another reason to keep the article, instead of a redirect. Ambivalenthysteria 03:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok - fair comments. I'll wait and see what emerges here before leaping to judgement. :) Martin 21:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

My study ("total nonsense")

Someone cited my survey study in this discussion. Someone else replied that it was "total nonsense." As the author/researcher, I feel I should say something here.

The survey study I conducted was for my undergraduate Honors project in sociology. It was a very modest effort, and (as I discuss in an appendix) flawed on several counts. The statistics in it have no significance beyond the sample involved both because of the small sample size and the sampling biases involved. As far as the quantitative data involved, then, characterizing the study as a "failure" seems harsh, but not inaccurate. What little relevance my survey study has lies in the qualitative data I gathered. This is why I have encouraged readers to direct their attention primarily to my literature review rather than my own study.

I suppose that the original article author cited my thesis not because of my modest survey study, but because of my review of extant literature on sexual orientation among transsexuals. I hope that you will read that and find it useful (although it is slightly dated now). It should be clear that trans people range across the entire spectrum of sexual orientations; I made and make no claims about the proportional distributions of sexual orientations among us, based on my little survey study or any of the bigger but still not really representative studies out there. --Harperjean 20:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was looking at it as something meant to be a thorough treatment. I agree that what I said is overly harsh in light of your intent. From that viewpoint, I suppose I ought to congratulate you on your well documented and carefully compiled project. --Eequor 21:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The "A few activists" bit

A few transsexual activists claim the orientation of transsexual women is correspondent to that of the cisgendered femal population, however, these claims so far have not been substantiated and appear to be politically motivated rather than based on facts. I put this bit in to refer to the debate above. Actually, since Julie and Eequor are the only people I have heard that claim from for approximately the last eight years, I don't have a problem if it is removed. The question is, is this point of view widespread enough to warrant inclusion. I was not certain, so I put it in. -- AlexR 00:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it's okay with you, that's fine. Ambivalenthysteria 00:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rename

  • This page needs to be moved to trans woman. Trans is clearly not a prefix here, i.e. it does not mean "across the woman". Trans is an adjective (shot for transsexual or transgendered). A construction like "transwoman" makes the woman sound like some weird entity, when in fact she is just a kind of woman. Trans woman is on the same grammatical model as black woman, deaf woman, gay woman, etc. In English, we talk of trans women, trans people, trans guys, etc.--Sonjaaa 20:39, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • We use what the majority of English-speaking people use. "Transwoman" has more than a thousand extra google hits over "Trans woman", and I rarely, if ever, see the latter used. Ambi 03:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Aha, looks like you're right, Rebecca, if web usage is the criterion for determining proper spelling. (Unfortunately, this is not always the case. For example, the same Google test would tell you that the English word transsexual should be spelled "transexual". I must admit I've never seen this practice of using trans as a prefix before. Maybe the variable grammatical category of "trans" is a regional thing that varies from one trans community (or "transcommunity" if you prefer!) to another. I've been very active in Toronto trans culture where, to the extent of my experience, "trans" is always used as an adjective, not a prefix, when referring to trans people. Example: http://www.the519.org/programs/trans/index.shtml Peace!--Sonjaaa 04:01, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think it seems to vary depending on the community and/or context. You bring up some good points, though, so I'm not fussed either way. I haven't seen it spelt as "trans woman" very often, I might add, but if you want to move it, I won't object. :) Ambi 05:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I very much object to moving the page, and would move it back. "Trans woman" already redirects to "transwoman", so links lead here. However, there are two reasons to keep it here. One has already pointed out, common usage. (Cis(wo)man is in my experience also more often used than cis (wo)man, so same there.) The anaology to "transexual" also does not hold water, as many of those will be plain misspellings, and others are intentional (!) uses of this spelling for political reasons. In other words, not quite comparable. Also, many use trans(wo)man intentionally because they happen to know that they are not "normal" women or men, if for no other reason than their personal history, which certainly differs from that of cisgendered women or men. So I find it rather odd that something that is definitely "common usage" should be moved again because in one community the usage is different. (One community, from where, if I remember correctly, other rather odd claimes came forward, too.) Add a paragraph about the usage in Toronto, if you want to, but don't impose that usage on all those people who have a different one. -- AlexR 08:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I've never heard anybody use cis- in everyday conversation, although it certainly is a correct usage of the prefix, opposite of trans. Everybody I know just uses "non-transsexual". Have you seen the usage guidelines on strap-on.org in the trans forum? They are a huge trans rights community online. I still hear some people say "bio-", "genetic" or "natal" even though these words are not acceptable to some, because they suggest that trans people somehow don't have a biology or genes.--Sonjaaa 07:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I like transwoman. it allows advocates of the terms transsexual woman, trans woman and transgender(ed) woman to all have their way. and the trans man entry on Wikipedia has adopted it. the word may violate the laws of English grammar, but I have no problem with that.
  • I personally use "trans woman" ("trans man", "trans people", etc.) when necessary to reify the idea that "trans" is an adjective (short for transsexual/transgendered) and not a prefix (and thus a separate noun). However, I agree with the current name of this article because it is clearly the most common usage. Foxxygirltamara 06:00, 21 December 2005 (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.