Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 1 July 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Having an image grid at the top

The[REDACTED] article Woman has a 4x4 image grid at the top. I thought it would be good to have a 3x3 grid at the top of this[REDACTED] page? My thoughts were:

• Christine Jorgensen first woman to have gender confirmation surgery
• Lana Wachowski director of The Matrix and V for Vendetta
• Renée Richards tennis player who was banned for being trans
• Laverne Cox actress and advocate
• Anna Grodzka polish MP
• Laura Jane Grace punk rock musician
• Roberta Cowell British world war 2 fighter pilot
• Martine Rothblatt CEO of united therapeutics, highest paid female CEO

Wikiditm (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for this. Some other suggestions:

• Chevalier d'Eon - French diplomat and spy, historical trans woman
• Raewyn Connell - Australian sociologist, founding figure in masculinities studies
• Chelsea Manning - American soldier
• Janet Mock - trans activist
• Lynn Conway - American computer scientist

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I support such an image as well. However, I support that if Chelsea Manning is included, a picture of her after her body is corrected with surgery must be used. Georgia guy (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolute agree with Georgia guy on that point. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. What if she doesn't even plan surgery? Not all trans people who medically transition undergo transition-related surgery of any kind at all, ever. Quite a lot, I believe, limit themselves to hormonal transition, which can provide sufficient relief from dysphoria and allow one to live in their chosen gender permanently. Usually, you can't see what's in their undies anyway, so it doesn't matter anyway, especially not for a portrait. So I'd think it should suffice for her at least until she's some time into HRT – or earlier, depending on how well she passes, possibly. On the other hand, scratch that, it's interesting either way; ultimately, what's important, IMHO, is that we have a picture where she earnestly presents en femme. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Fellow editors, this question may be moot. The galleries at Woman and Man were removed as a result of this RfC which supported the addition of "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members" to MOS:IMAGES. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 15:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I may have spoken too soon. There is a current RfC here. Apologies. - Ryk72 17:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Need for mention about tucking/tabbing

Is this the article where tucking/tabbing should be mentioned? This link will be paywalled at the middle of July 2016, I expect. (This[REDACTED] article is closed to IP-edits.) 178.232.226.9 (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Now durably archived here: Tale of the tape at WebCite (archived 2016-05-29) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Kate Bornstein

Given that Kate Bornstein does not identify as a woman but as genderqueer/nonbinary, should ze be listed here? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: nope since ze is not a woman. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Question re prevalance in population

Just wondering if this is a known stat and one that would be relevant to include (I sort of feel it would be, for reasons of showing that it's not a wildly uncommon characteristic)... a somewhat vague one is given on the Trans man page after all, and that's rather harder to pin down as often ftM people can pass more easily and do so with enough stealth to not be picked up on surveys. Their highball estimate is 1:2000 and as far as I was aware mtF was a more common character. Could be good for education, attitude influence etc... 193.63.174.254 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Roughly 0.3% according to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Concerned about the neutrality of this article

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be written in Npov, but this article contains the following opening line: "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth."

This is not neutral pov. I propose it be re-written to say: "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who claims they are a woman who was assigned male at birth."

The way this article is written automatically assumes a political position as opposed to remaining neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.62.21 (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think that a transgender person's identity is an arbitrary claim?? How?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What editors think is often irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. Do you have sources for your proposed definition? Dimadick (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, what I can tell you is that it is not a scientific fact that trans women are women who were assigned male at birth. It's very possible. It might even be likely. But there's no scientific consensus regarding that. In fact, the WHO still considers it a mental illness, though that is likely to change sometime soon. All I'm saying is that the statement that a transwoman is a woman who was assigned male at birth is not actually a fact, but an unproven belief. Could it be true? Absolutely. I'll even go so far as to suggest that it's more likely true than not true. But because there is no hard evidence, this article is assuming it is true, thus taking a political position. I feel as though a little neutrality goes a long way towards fairness. The scientific community has not reached any consensus, and so neither should Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.62.21 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a neutrality problem. Look for example at Woman, which links to this article saying "There are also transgender and transsexual women, who were assigned as male at birth, but identify as women; there are varying social, legal, and individual definitions with regard to these issues (see trans woman)". Yet this article, the primary one on the topic, does not even remotely hint at the fact that there is controversy around trans-ness and some people don't regard trans women as women. Equinox ◑ 01:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's because those people don't understand transgenderism well; they simply accept without proof the idea that transgenderism is simply wanting to change your gender or lacking gender constancy. Georgia guy (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradicts the articles "woman" and "female"

(This issue is closely related to the issue raised in the previous section.)

The intro paragraph says that a "trans woman" is a type of woman. That article in turn says that women are female. That article in turn defines female as, well, the common biological definition. But trans women are not female according to that definition, leading to an internal contradiction. Misplaced Pages could change its definition of "female" from the biological definition (which would be very strange and need some major sourcing I guess), or change the article "woman" to not define women as female people (again quite strange as that's the definition you'll find in any dictionary, encyclopedia, and from any person you ask on the street), or clarify in this article that the issue of whether "trans women" are or aren't actually women is a point of political debate.

As it stands, Misplaced Pages simply contradicts itself / implicitly makes the false claim that trans women have female sex. TaylanUB (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The intro for woman includes that the term is also used to refer to a person's gender identity. Does that not resolve the contradiction? JB525 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that part. I guess it could solve the contradition, though it's kind of unclear what it means to say. A wording like "some people may also be considered women because of their gender identity" would be clearer, though that's a change to that article and I'll discuss it there. As far as this article goes, it may be useful to mention in the intro that this alternative definition of woman applies, because if one simply follows the initial parts of the intros one would be led to believe that trans women are female. :-) TaylanUB (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also: it may be better not to state that trans women are women, but that they are considered to be women by some people, based on gender identity or social presentation. (Also see: the recommendation I just made in the talk page of the Woman article.) TaylanUB (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems the woman article isn't going to be changed. But there was some agreement during the relevant discussion that the current intro of that article doesn't say that trans women are a type of woman. In line with this, the current intro should be changed so as not to imply that trans women are female or otherwise confuse readers. TaylanUB (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a few suggestions. The parenthesis mentioning alternative spellings that exists in the original is removed for brevity; it would be added back if one of these is adopted.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but professes a female gender identity.

A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman, without being female.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but is accepted as a woman by some members of society because of her professed gender identity or social presentation.

A trans woman is a person who is accepted as a woman by some members of society because of her professed gender identity or social presentation, despite not being female.

A trans woman is a person who is not female but is accepted as a woman by some members of society.

A trans woman is a person who is accepted as a woman by some members of society, despite not being female.

That's all I've got for now. Note how there's three basic variations, each with a pair of sub-variants that put the "not female" part first, and last, respectively. (I thought it may be more kind to put that at the end so as not to emphasize it first, so added such a sub-variant to all basic variants.) I personally like the first variant for its simplicity, though it may not represent all trans women, as I believe some don't define their trans identity on the notion of gender identity. The third option is an attempt at fixing that, but maybe it's too long? The fifth option is a different simplistic approach that I just came up with; not sure how good. Feel free to recommend more. TaylanUB (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice: I've just noticed that this page is "semi-protected" rather than fully protected (I'm a relative Misplaced Pages noob...) so I can just edit the article myself after all. Still, as I've started the discussion, I'll wait a bit if there's any feedback before I make a change, so there isn't too much back-and-forth editing if somebody disagrees with my choice. TaylanUB (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please realize how rude it is to say trans women are not female. It uses the point of view that transgenderism is just playing make believe. Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the article female. It's a biological classification, and trans women by definition don't fall under it. Why is it be rude to point this out? TaylanUB (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand gender identity. It's important to avoid looking at transgenderism the easy way. Please do research to understand exactly what it is; it's a serious birth condition. The statement that trans women are not biologically female, taken literally, implies that transgenderism doesn't exist biologically. Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have 1) any reliable sources for the claim that all or most of transgender women and men share (group wise; one for trans women one for trans men) an inborn biological condition that invariably (without the effect of society) leads to the development of their transgender identity, and 2) any reliable sources offering a definition of female and male that includes said pair of inborn conditions in those definitions? Because from what I can tell, there is neither a scientific conclusion on the cause of transgender identity, nor would it be automatically included in the definition of "female" and "male" if it did, as these are so far defined through genetics, reproductive anatomy and not for instance any aspect of a person's neurology. TaylanUB (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Somebody besides me and TaylanUB, please reveal your opinions on this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS. We have WP:OR about one person's views on gender, sex, and the intersection thereof. I have little interest in engaging. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(de-indent) Apparently the female article is pretty much unsourced, which I only notice now. It's not difficult to at least find online dictionary sources for the given definition though. (I'd dig up an encyclopedia or biology textbook, but I'm in Germany so won't be able to find English sources easily.) As a bare minimum, I just added a citation to the initial definition of female, using the online version of the Oxford dictionary. So, given there are verifiable definitions of "female" that exclude trans women, and assuming there are none that include them, I think it should be safe to state that trans women aren't female? TaylanUB (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated those assumptions are reasonable. Moreover, we are not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). We don't define or discuss topics based on the OED. Additionally, the term female is contested more generally; some argue it should be used only in terms of biological sex, but common parlance and other sources use it interchangeably with woman and to refer to gender. (See Sex-gender distinction) Provide some sources for your broad statements please. I can tell you that the most recent social science literature doesn't discuss trans women in terms of "biologically male but gender as a woman" but rather as an assigned-male at birth person who is a woman. The focus now is about sex assignment and transgender people are those who do not identify with that assigned gender/sex. (, , , ) EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Newhalf?

Newhalf redirects to here but the term is neither mentioned nor explained in the article at all. --RokerHRO (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@RokerHRO: You're right, there should be a mention, or the redirect should not point here. If you look at the redirect article history, you'll see that it used to point to futanari, and that the wiktionary article was given as justification for the change of the redirect target to Trans woman.

Either there should be a new section, something like "Global terms for trans women", with mentions of things like kathoey, Two spirit, ladyboy, fa'afafine, khanith, muxe and so on, where 'Newhalf' could be included as well, with sourcing from reliable sources, of course. At that point, the redirect at the Newhalf article should be recast as {{R to section}}. Feel free to jump in and do it. Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Media influence section

The Media influence section has some information that seems good and I would like see it, or something like this topic, kept in the article. However, a paper published by undergraduate college students as part of a college degree honors program would not generally be regarded as a reliable source, and currently, it is the only source for the entire section. For the time being, I've tagged the references with {{Better source}} as a stopgap, to give us time to find new references to support this. However, if there are no reliable references within, say, a week, all unreferenced material will need to be removed, which currently means the entire section.

Also, non-notable authors or not usually quoted by name in plain text in the article body, even when their paper is a reliable reference, so I have removed the names of these two undergraduates from the article. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding for the record: these edits appear to be related to classwork being performed in connection with a college class; see Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/Loyola Marymount University/Gender, Race, and Sexuality in Contemporary Society Sections 4 and 5 (Spring 2017) for details. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Racheljsmall: I've removed this section for now, but feel free to add it back, including references from reliable sources. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Milestones section

The section Milestones in transgender activism and visibility has some issues.

First, the relevance of the section to the article: there are other articles where this section as currently constituted might fit better, such as at the Transgender article, or, since every subsection in this section currently concerns U.S. people and events, perhaps History of transgender people in the United States. Or as some of them concern the wider LGBT and not just trans* people, perhaps at LGBT history in the United States.

With a section title change, some of this material could be kept Since this is the Trans woman article, if it were something like "Milestones in activism and visibility of trans women" would be relevant and on-topic for the article, although I find that wording rather awkward, and hopefully something better could be found. We could keep the stuff about Christine Jorgensen, mention the crucial role transwomen played at Stonewall. The sections on Pride, and Minnesota discrimination laws are not specifically about transwomen, and would fit better in a "Milestones" section in a Transgender article.

In addition, all of the five subsections are extensively covered in other articles, so all that would be needed here, is a brief summary section, with the use of Wikilinks or {{Main}} template links to the principal articles concerned. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding for the record: these edits appear to be related to classwork being performed in connection with a college class; see Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/Loyola Marymount University/Gender, Race, and Sexuality in Contemporary Society Sections 4 and 5 (Spring 2017) for details. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've recast the list as a definition list for now, rather than keep a whole series of short subsections, which have main articles elsewhere. Let's see how this works. Also, the items in the list are kind of arbitrary. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trans woman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020055359/http://www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/history/lilielbe.htm to http://www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/history/lilielbe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent change to the lead sentence

Regarding this edit, Colonial Overlord, what is your rationale for changing "is a woman who was assigned male at birth" to " is a person with a female gender identity and a male sex assignment"? Why should we support your change as opposed to the previous wording? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

And given your arguments elsewhere, I think I know why you made the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly obvious. Since "woman" can mean different things, "is a woman" is 1) unclear and 2) POV. Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Misplaced Pages's terms, stating "is a woman who was assigned male at birth" is not a POV issue, but I think that your edit is coming from a POV mindset. I'll leave a note at WP:LGBT about weighing in on this. If you want to alert a different WikiProject, you are obviously free to do so, but, per WP:Canvassing, remember to keep your wording neutral. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How the hell is it not a POV issue? Do I really need to provide evidence that there are enormous numbers of people, organisations, politicians, ideologies etc that do not accept that transgender women are women? Do I need to point out that which of several possible definitions of "woman" is the one society should use, or the philosophical question of whether someone who is biologically male but identifies as female has the essential nature of a woman or not, are not questions[REDACTED] should be taking a side on? Also, please tell me what is in any way inaccurate about my edit. Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Colonial Overlord, in terms of Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policy (which is mostly about WP:Due weight), I do not think it is a POV issue. This is why I stated, "With regard to Misplaced Pages's terms, stating 'is a woman who was assigned male at birth' is not a POV issue." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, could you explain why you do not think it is a POV issue? Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Colonial Overlord, because this article is about the topic of trans women, and the literature on trans women generally supports describing them as women. This is why I noted WP:Due weight. As for what you stated about activism below, I dislike activism on Misplaced Pages; this is why I will cite the WP:Activism essay in such cases. I assure that I am not thinking from activist point of view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for that clarification. I assure you I am not thinking from an activist point of view either, unless you count that I am most likely to edit[REDACTED] to remove what appears to be agenda-based wording (you could say I have an anti-activist agenda), no matter what the agenda. If you look through my editing history you'll see that I have tried to increase recognition of the importance and accomplishments of the Australia Greens on wikipedia, a party that would totally support the agenda that I am trying to remove from this article. And I am entirely open to being persuaded by rational argument on issues being discussed here. As I've pointed out below, however, one of the main editors opposing me most definitely seems to be coming from an activist point of view. Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I will go ahead and note that the Trans man article currently states "is a transgender person who was assigned female at birth but whose gender identity is that of a man." If you were to use "is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman," I think that would be better than your current wording for the lead sentence of the Trans woman article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as it's not saying "is a woman", I suppose that would be okay. But would you mind telling me what's wrong with my phrasing? Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Trans women are women. The original wording (before Colonial Overlord's edit) was fine. Funcrunch (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

And what argument or reason do you have for that claim being an indisputable fact? It seems to me that based on how most people on the street would define the word "woman", and based on how it's been defined by pretty much everyone throughout history until the last few years or so, it would be more defensible for the article to say they are not women. But note that I'm not saying the article should say that; I'm saying it shouldn't take sides either way. Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Trans women (and other trans people) are not a phenomenon of "the last few years or so"; see transgender history for starters. And Misplaced Pages has a clear precedent for referring to trans women as women; see WP:GENDERID. Funcrunch (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The replacement wording is a rampant breach of NPOV (and, insofar as it is linked on many people's articles, a serious violation of BLP too). We don't misgender subjects of BLP articles because of Colonial Overlord's personal opinions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have alerted WikiProject Women in Red to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• As I see it, the problem with the new wording is that it removes an essential defining characteristic, womanhood, from the description of what a trans woman is. The lead sentence should define what the topic is about. In this article, it's about a subset of women. As it's written now, that's far from clear. Rivertorch_WATER 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Rivertorch. Clearly this is a POV issue for Colonial Overlord. It isn't "woman" that can mean different things, it is female that can. Woman, is a female human, female is much more vague, as it can apply to any species. Would be willing to accept Flyer22 Reborn's compromise verbiage, but I find Overlord's edit to be inaccurate and a breach of NPOV. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My preference is for the original intro sentence. It is the most clear and succinct option. Beyond that, colonial overlord's edit is a clear fringe POV push. No major medical or psychiatric organization takes the view trans women aren't women and the consensus in gender theory is also against that position. Rab V (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing lots of personal attacks and very little response to the arguments I've made. Rather than shouting "no, you have a POV agenda" can we please leave aside personal accusations and personal opinions and focus on what can be indisputably proven by logical argument and evidence?

There are two issues here. (1) Whether the article should say "woman" or "female" and (2) whether it should say "IS a woman/female" or "has the gender identity of woman/female".

On (1) my opinion is not so strong, but it seems that "female gender identity" flows a lot better than "gender identity of a woman" and also that if we're going to say that their sex assignment is male we should be consistent and say their gender identity is female. And what argument is there against my wording? The only one I can see above is that "female" doesn't just apply to humans, but given that it says "is a person with a female gender identity" I don't see how that's an issue.

On (2), are people seriously contending that "woman" always, indisputably refers to gender identity and never to genitals, chromosomes or anything biological? Because that seems absurd. My oxford dictionary defines "woman" as "an adult female person" and "female" as "of the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs". It was published in 2006 (hardly ancient) and makes no mention of gender identity whatsoever. On this dictionary's definition most "transgender women" are catergorically not women. Of course there will be other sources that give gender identity as a definition of woman, which is why WP should not take a side either way. The fact that my dictionary (and I suspect most sources from the same time) don't mention gender identity at all as part of the definition gives reason to think that the mainstream idea of defining "woman" by gender identity is extremely recent and not something WP should be adopting as undisputed fact.

Just to address the only two real arguments that seem to have been raised above: the manuel of style is irrelevant here because this isn't a matter of style but of asserting something as a fact, in the lede of an article no less. And the opinions of medical organisations are no more relevant than anyone else because, insofar as this is an issue of fact at all rather than just one's preference on how to use and define a particular word, it is a question in philosophy, not medicine, of what it essentially means to be a woman and whether transgender women qualify. Philosophical questions like that are not something[REDACTED] should be taking a side on. Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Without getting into the substance, I'd just like to point out that there have been no personal attacks against you. As a reminder, here's a definition of it. When someone disagrees with you about something, it may feel like a personal attack, especially if it's something you are passionate about, and I suspect that's what elicited your reaction. Note that "ccusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." For the most part, you've been sticking to the content argument, and that's good. Keep doing that. I think you were just letting your passions run away with you, and didn't mean it. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to such statements as "colonial overlord's edit is a clear fringe POV push", "clearly this is a POV issue for Colonial Overlord" and "We don't misgender subjects of BLP articles because of Colonial Overlord's personal opinions" by at least three different editors. I think all of these are, to a reasonable person, implicit accusations that I am acting in bad faith and/or editing solely based on personal bias, which is particularly jarring when the people making these claims aren't responding at all to the substantive arguments I've made. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever phrasing is used, I think it would be appropriate for Trans man and Trans woman to use parallel phrasing (mutatis mutandis). -sche (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Your dictionary example wouldn't hold up for a[REDACTED] article as it violates WP:SYNTH. Merging entries to make them imply something they do not directly say is a form of original research. In general, wikipedia's content is based off the published reliable sources on a topic. In this case, the major organizations in medicine, like the AMA, psychiatry, APA, and gender theory all agree that gender is not contingent on assigned sex, a trans woman is a woman. A consensus like this is very sufficient for[REDACTED] and treating it as merely an opinion in the article's intros would be giving undue weight to fringe views. Rab V (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to elaborate. How does using a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word violate WP:SYNTH? And as I said above, "is a woman" is not a medical claim, but a linguistic or philosophical one. Yes, sure, gender identity is not dependent on sex, but the relevant question is whether "woman" refers to gender identity or to sex, for which consulting the dictionary is the obvious recourse. Colonial Overlord (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You are combining two different entries from that dictionary to make them imply something neither entry is directly saying. Neither entry mentions trans women, hence WP:SYNTH applies. Beyond that, a dictionary entry is a lower quality source than one made by groups of experts on the topic. But that is besides here since the WP:SYNTH issue and neither dictionary entry directly mentioning trans women. Rab V (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As I've seen no other editors agree with Colonial Overlord on this issue, I recommend this discussion be closed and the previous wording of the lead ("A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth.") restored. CO (or anyone else) can open a formal RfC if desired to further assess consensus. Funcrunch (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Rivertorch_WATER 17:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Except that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Discussions are not supposed to be about weight of numbers, but rather about "persuad others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". I have provided several reasons and arguments in support of my position, which have mostly not been responded to. I should also note that, regardless of what some of you might think, I am definitely open to being persuaded. My annoyance at the original lede that led me to change it was not merely because of what it said, but because I couldn't see any rational or evidential justification for it. If you think there is such a justification and that my arguments are unsound, it would be helpful if you could explain why. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages works on consensus, which you have not established for your preferred wording. I and the other editors have provided explanations for our disagreement, which you have rejected. That doesn't simply make you right and all of us wrong. I have restored the previous wording; as I said here and in my edit summary, you may start an RfC if you disagree. Funcrunch (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"I and the other editors have provided explanations for our disagreement, which you have rejected."

I have not simply rejected them, I have provided reasons for rejecting them, which nobody has responded to. You, on the other hand, have not provided any reasons whatsoever for rejecting my dictionary-based arguments. It doesn't matter how many people are on each side of a dispute. All that matters is what reasons and arguments have been provided by each side.

As I see it:

(1)I have argued that many dictionaries do not mention gender identity in the definition of "woman" or "female" at all, and that therefore it is a breach of WP:NPOV to use a definition of the word that is provided as ONE of the possible definitions in SOME sources, as though it is the universallly accepted definition.

(2)The only response I recieved to this argument is that this constituted WP:SYNTH. I asked how using a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word constituted SYNTH and recieved no response.

(3)The only other arguments that have been offered for the original wording have been an appeal to the manual of style, and an appeal to the opinions of medical organisations. I questioned what relevance the manual of style has to a factual claim in the lede of an article and recieved no response. I questioned why medical organisations are particularly qualified to determine the correct meaning of an everyday word and recieved no response.

(4)Apart from that, all other response to my arguments have been such statements as "my preference is for the original wording" and "I think your edit is coming from a POV mindset" with no arguments provided at all. Such responses utterly fail to satisfy Misplaced Pages's policies on the purposes of discussion.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, please explain why.

Finally, what need is there for a request for comment? I am here, ready to defend my position. There are many of you here who disagree with me, which requires you to actually engage with the arguments I have made. There is no need for extra opinions, there is merely a need for those with opinions to provide reasons and arguments (and engage with the responses to the reasons and arguments they claim to have given) rather than simply declaring their opinion. Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Colonial Overlord: Dictionaries do not cover the full context and connotations of a word. If the dictionary entry does not specifically state that trans women aren't women, it's not a good source on the topic of trans women as the definition can be simply considered possibly incomplete. – 🐱? (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not arguing that the article should say they are not women. I'm saying it should stick to what is indisputable (their gender identity is female and their assigned sex is male) without making any potentially contentius claims about what they are. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Colonial Overlord: You don't own this article. Other editors are not required to engage with you to your specific satisfaction. I have no more to say to you on this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And you don't own this article either, not even if you have ten people backing you up. Again, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. For all I know, all of you could be LGBT movement activists. I'm saying that's the case at all, but it's one of the reasons merely declaring your opinion is insufficent to back up your preferred language. If you want the article to be a certain way then you need to provide reasons and engage with the reasons provided by others. I made a summary above of all the points I have made that have not been addressed at all, not just not to my "specific satisfaction". If you are unwilling to engage in reason-based discussion, then you have no right to insist that the article remain a certain way. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Colonial Overlord: You seem to be edging toward a battleground mentality in your comments here. You keep complaining that your arguments haven't been addressed, but that seems specious. Much of what you've said has been addressed, and you haven't liked the responses you received. If a particular argument you've made hasn't been addressed, well, there are several potential reasons for that; one obvious one is that those who've read what you're saying don't feel it's sufficiently logical or germane to warrant a response. Using phrases like "indisputably proven" and "objective reality" when referring to your own opinions isn't likely to help you achieve consensus, but it speaks volumes about your unwillingness to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

You implied that someone suggested "'woman' always...refers to gender identity and never to genitals, chromosomes or anything biological”, but no one said that. I'd say that "woman" sometimes refers primarily to gender identity, and that this is one of those times. I'd also say that your lumping together genitals and chromosomes with "anything biological" is a bit of a leap; there's far more to biology than anatomy and genetics. My main problem with your wording is one I've already addressed above, so I'll reiterate only briefly: it deliberately omits a basic attribute of trans women, namely womanhood.

Dictionaries are nice—I use them frequently and even cite them from time to time—but they're frequently unhelpful in deciding how to word a lead section, which is supposed to summarize the article that follows. The lead sentence itself should say what the article is about, and any definition given should reflect that. Since the article is about trans women, it seems distinctly odd to seek to omit the word "woman" from the lead sentence. Rivertorch_WATER 21:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Much of what you've said has been addressed, and you haven't liked the responses you received."

Addressing something does not just mean simply saying something to it. It means actually engaging with the argument logically, explaining why you think it fails, and engaging with responses to your response. Saying "well I disagree because x" without explaining how x is even relevant to the topic, let alone making a clear logical argument, is entirely insufficient.

"If a particular argument you've made hasn't been addressed, well, there are several potential reasons for that; one obvious one is that those who've read what you're saying don't feel it's sufficiently logical or germane to warrant a response"

Then they need to explain why they think that. Merely stating their opinion is not enough because, again, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.

"Using phrases like "indisputably proven" and "objective reality" when referring to your own opinions isn't likely to help you achieve consensus, but it speaks volumes about your unwillingness to consider the possibility that you're wrong."

No, I was saying that the opinions of those of you opposing me are not indisputably proven, not that mine are.

As for your content argument: you seem to arguing about issue (1) that I described above, rather than issue (2). Namely, whether to say "woman" or "female". As I said above, my opinion is not very strong on this, so in light of your argument about the importance of using the word "woman", I'm prepared to accept the compromise wording mentioned above, which is the equivalent of what is used in the "trans man" article. Namely, "is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman". This satisfies most of my arguments, and appears to satisfy yours as well. Can we agree on this? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Noting for the record: a parallel change to Trans man was made by Colonial Overlord at 9:02, 29 June 2017, and now reads: A trans man (sometimes trans-man or transman) is a transgender person who was assigned female at birth but whose gender identity is that of a man. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted and started a discussion on that talk page. I also reverted the "compromise wording" edit made today which has not gained consensus on this talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This is getting very tedious. Multiple editors above expressed acceptance of the wording paralell to that used on the other article. I asked just above if that wording was fine and there were no objections. Looking through this discussion I can't see a single reason provided by anyone against using that wording. It also entirely satisfies the arguments made by Rivertorch and several others. These facts absolutely satisfy the requirements of WP:CONSENSUS so your reversion, particularly as it was accompanied by no substantive objections to the wording, is unjustified. Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel I should note, for the benefit of anyone observing this discussion, that Funcrunch's user page states "My current (2016-2017) focus on Misplaced Pages is improving representation of marginalized people. Transgender/nonbinary people and black people are my priorities." This does not of course disqualify Funcrunch from participating in this discussion, but it does raise doubts as to whether he or she is the most impartial person on this issue. Particularly since that phrasing suggests that "representation" is a higher priority for Funcrunch than truth and verifiability. Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Step away from the abused horse carcass. You've got a number of editors who all disagree with you CO. You're now in POINT/Tendentious territory. Your original edits on this page are major POV. I'm surprised people have entertained your comments this long. But now your attacking other users. Stop. If you want to discuss the "amab but gender identity of woman" go ahead as that's at least closer to something used in the source. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(1) It is not attacking a user to point out that their user page basically says they are an activist on this issue. It is aimed at other people reading this discussion who might otherwise think that the user in question is an impartial observer. And[REDACTED] is not the place for activism. Surely you agree with that?

(2) What, in any way, is POV about either of my edits? That a "trans woman" has a "female gender identity" and a "gender identity of a woman" seem indisputable: do you know of anyone who would dispute those claims? By contrast, that a "trans woman" is a woman is something an enormous number of people would dispute.

(3) I have already agreed to that wording, which several editors already indicated was acceptable to them, and I asked if that wording was fine and there were no objections for many days. So what else is there to discuss? Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I've filed a report at ANI. Editor has been notified. Funcrunch (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You're correct, there's nothing to discuss — your proposed change has been analyzed and rejected by a clear and convincing consensus of editors on this talk page. You don't get to push your preferred version against consensus merely because the consensus conflicts with your personal worldview. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Is anybody actually reading what I write? I've said, multiple times, that I've changed my position and am willing to accept the wording "is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman" which multiple editors have stated is acceptable and NOBODY has yet made an objection to. If that isn't consensus then what is? Yet Funcrunch still reverted without giving any reasons why. Colonial Overlord (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) You do not have consensus to make the changes you favor. You may not like the rationales offered here by other users, and you may think their rationales are invalid or even non-existent. It doesn't matter. Questions of content hinge on consensus, and continuing to argue for weeks when consensus is against you is disruptive, as is suggesting you have consensus when multiple users say that you don't. Misplaced Pages has established processes for dispute resolution; they do not include seeking to prolong a discussion that has become unproductive, while casting aspersions on the impartiality of other users. Please consider disengaging at this point. Rivertorch_WATER 15:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to be taking in what I am saying. I have CHANGED my position in response to the arguments you gave, Rivertorch, and am now proposing wording that satisfies everything you have said, and that multiple editors expressed approval of. I asked you if that wording was fine and you didn't object. So why are you still fighting me on this? Colonial Overlord (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles