Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 6 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trans woman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 4 months

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. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

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.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RouBa1998 (article contribs).

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about Neutral point of view, Wording of lede and Contradicts the articles woman and female. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: Neutral point of view Wording of lede Contradicts the articles woman and female Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 18:07, June 16, 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "a transwoman is a woman" langauge at the opening of the article. As everyone in the world knows, men are NOT women and men canNOT become women. You call the value of all of Misplaced Pages into question when you publish articles baldly proclaiming that 2 plus 2 equals 5 as though there is no controversy on the matter. If everyone knows you are publishing "night is day" articles, of what conceivable worth is your "encyclopedia?" 2601:203:203:5800:833:BB8B:24B8:2BB (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Reopening. As it stands it is incorrect. Not tolerable on wikipedia.

 Not done: Please do not reopen based on your personal opinion of "truth" . See WP:NOTTRUTH for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is really easy to rephrase the first sentence to be neutral, as in “Transwomen are people who consider themselves women, and are increasingly considered by society as women, who were not assigned female at birth.” To me and many, many others, transwomen are no women. Our view point is being systematically marginalised by people pretending transwomen are *factually* women when in reality this is merely world view to which millions or even billions of people worldwide do not subscribe.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need consensus for something that is clearly using the wrong wording? "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" is factually inaccurate. There is much debate as to what it means to be a man, or to be a woman, but one thing is for sure: claiming that I am an elephant doesn't mean my Misplaced Pages article should say "...is an elephant." It should reflect the objective state of the world and my claims about it. "...is a person who claims to be an elephant" therefore would be much more accurate, and neutral. "A trans woman is a person who, having been born as a man, prefers to identify and conduct herself socially as a woman." would be a good place to start, a neutral and respectful assertion about the biological state of the person at birth and the adjustment to their chosen personality. Camilovietnam (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, here at WP, we follow what reliable sources say, not what individual editors personally believe to be true. Reliable sources on Trans women, by overwhelming consensus, state that they are women. What is more, your personal description of the "objective state of the world" is, AFAIK, not supported by reliable sources and therefore not germane to tHs discussion. I would go further, and say that your "claiming that you are an elephant" example is somewhere between a red herring and classic NOTHERE. I have seen no reliable sources stating either that you are an elephant or that you claim to be an elephant, so the case is not relevant. Are you an elephant? If not, let's move on. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above. Do not open this request again without obtaining consensus. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

At least put those "reliable sources" on the article. I have found 6 reliable sources from leading institutions and NONE of them uses the formula "A trans woman is a woman". Here are my references: (1. Harvard 2. Stanford 3. Princeton 4. Johns Hopkins University 5. American Psychological Univeristy 6. Planned Parenthood) --Lenny230 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be common here to claim that there is “overwhelming consensus” here and there are “reliable sources” backing this up. Yet, if you follow the request for comment, you will find that there is no consensus, but a mere stalemate on the issue and that no linked “reliable sources’ which ought to back up the claim actually hold up. If this is to be changed, maybe show some support for me in the relevant talk section I opened. Maybe if enough people do this, maybe we can get a repeated request for comment. I wouldn’t get my hopes, though. However, one can always try, maybe even should always try. 78.48.179.127 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

POV issues

Flyer22 Frozen suggests there is a lot of POV wording, etc, and it needs tweaking before it goes lives. I used only primary sources and valid secondary news sources. I quote statistics, and in the process, reworded bigoted (e.g. "In 2015 a trope") and victim blaming language to reflect more neutral and accurate POV. I have been asked to present changes to my edits here, but my edits greatly expanded the knowledge of the section, which amounted to 11,930 characters. Am I required to enter a roughly 11,930 character edit here? --CheMoare (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For note, the edit in question is this one EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

CheMoare, see WP:Label, WP:Editorializing and WP:Tone. You shouldn't be adding wording such as "the more egregious", "bigoted", or "it is important to note." If a source states that, then you should attribute it to the author via WP:In-text attribution. Also, primary sources (see WP:Primary sources) are not preferred. Read WP:SCHOLARSHIP as well. Regarding health material, you should especially choose sources that are not primary. For why, see WP:MEDRS. Sources such as those from Medium generally shouldn't be used, as anyone can publish on Medium; see WP:Self-published sources. The exception for using such sources is what WP:Self-published and WP:About self state. As for posting your content for review, you can use your sandbox (located at the top of your account, where other options are located). You can post the content in your sandbox, tweak it, allow others to tweak it, link to the sandbox here and ask for review. And if there is WP:Consensus to add it, it will be added. No need to WP:Ping me when you reply since I watch this article and prefer not to be pinged to articles I'm watching. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

By primary source, I am speaking of the national surveys conducted, with prior standard review board approval for ethical practices. Not opinion pieces. Secondary sources, in this matter, would be the opinion pieces that were originally linked in the section I edited, which misrepresent the data. This is a standard inclusion in thousands of wiki articles, so I won't pretend it is wrong to include them here. However, your comment about the zine "Medium" is odd, given the quality of references that had already been approved in the section. My edits do not include health material, therefore it's unclear why you included that in your response. Further to this, it appears the text you have directed me to view as not all mine, but in part the opinionated and possibly biased language of the person who contributed prior to me, of which I left some in. For ex, "Hate crimes that target trans women are known as trans bashing." <- That is not my edit. Nor is ""gay panic" defense." So, at this point, edit whatever you want. I included only facts, no false information, national statistics, cited all my sources, and it was edited with the aim of removing false information and adding accurate and up-to-date info. Do as you please. CheMoare (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

CheMoare, take the time to thoroughly read the guidelines and WP:Tone supplement page I pointed you to. Whether you are speaking of opinions pieces or not, WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear about primary sources. So is WP:MEDRS. And as seen with WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:In-text attribution, and WP:NEWSBLOG, we have rules regarding opinion pieces as well. Regarding your wording changes, this edit shows that you changed "Trans women face a form of violence known as trans bashing." to "Hate crimes that target trans women are known as trans bashing." So, yes, the latter is your wording. If you read WP:Self-published sources, what I stated about Medium is not odd. The article having poor sourcing doesn't meant that more poor sourcing should be added. It just means that it's one aspect of the article that needs cleanup. And you clearly added "One of the more egregious gaslighting efforts by abusers (almost always men) to justify", etc. As for "gay panic defense", the term article was already linked in the section (using the term "trans panic defense" and pointing readers to the trans panic section of that article), but you did change "Approximately 56% of violent crimes towards trans people between 1990–2005 occurred because of this perceived deception." to "Approximately 56% of violent crimes towards trans people between 1990–2005 were committed because the abuser attempted to plead some form of 'gay panic' defense." As for health material? Information about intimate partner violence is health material. You added, for example, "For comparison, 24.3% of women and 13.8% of men aged 18+ in the United States 'have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime'." Should I have stated "medical material"? WP:MEDRS applies to health/medical material. See WP:Biomedical information. As for including your material, I am simply noting to you that we have policies and guidelines to follow, and that your text needs tweaking before it is added. There is no need to get upset or discouraged. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tweak away. You're the wikispirit. My contributions are submitted in full. CheMoare (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Warning of possible edit brigading

This article was linked here, and some users professed a desire to change the page as 'Misplaced Pages (has been) co-opted by Trans propaganda'. This is just to explain the source if a flurry of edits suddenly comes in, thanks. Amekyras (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It should not be stated that transwomen are women

The Misplaced Pages article on transwomen should state neither explictly nor implicitly that transwomen are women. This is a gross violation of wikipedia’s principle of neutral point of view, specifically of “Do not state opinions as facts”.

Whether transwomen are seen as women, depends highly on one’s notion of a woman, so we are dealing with opinions here. There are many millions, if not billions, of people worldwide who do not consider transwomen to be women, and from all sorts of creeds and political positions. For instance, at least the majority of trans-exclusional radical feminists reject the statement. No doubt that highly religious Christians and Muslims would disagree, too, as ell as several other right-leaning people.

Hence, the first sentence “Transwomen are women who …” must be rephrased. For example “Transwomen are people who consider themselves to be women, though not being assigned female at birth.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the lead sentence is based on reliable sources and previous repeated consensus. There's no guideline/policy violation here. Your proposed wording, on the other hand, is poor: "though not assigned female at birth" is begging the question, and in general it's not based on any RS. --Equivamp - talk 06:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) What consensus? I dissent, others dissent. Show me your consensus. Who is consenting to it? (2) Which “reliable sources”? I see none given, but even more: (3) The statement “transwomen are women” depends on one’s exact notion of “women”, which therefore is, as already stated, a matter of opinion – What would a “reliable source” for the statement “transwomen are women” even be? (4) How is “though not assigned female at birth” begging the question? (5) Even so, do you consider the statement “traswomen are people who consider themselves women” false?

If you claim that “transwomen are women” is (A) not a matter of opinion, but of fact, and (B) that it’s factually true and by society accepted to be true, you will have to back that up. All of it, and I see none.

I see really no reason at all why anyone would not just go “Okay, well. Let’s just not make a big hassle out of it, let’s just switch to the more cautios wording, which isn’t false in any way and probably is more accurate to many people.” – why even defend such a small sentence against a true, more neutral, more diplomatic alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No sea lioning, please. The sources are clear. Newimpartial (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I really do see none given. Are we viewing the same article? This is not sealioning. If the sources are clear, I must be blind or too unfamiliar with[REDACTED] and then I kindly ask to be pointed to these sources and to where I could have found them on the[REDACTED] page. – Also, my case does not solely or even mainly rest on the lack of sources, this has been only point (2) out of five, with point (3) explaining that it even has to be established that this is a matter of giving sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On what planet does the very rare Intersection of the radical views of the few trans-exclusional radical feminists and the beliefs of an unknown number of highly religious Christians and Muslims reflect a more neutral consensus. Sources and citations are not usually included in the lede of an article, as it its just a summary of the main body of the article. ~ BOD ~ 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not even claimed that: I am not suggesting to change the lead sentence to reflect these views (which are not radical at all); I am suggesting to change the lead sentence to not reflect anyone’s mere views at all. As it stands, the Misplaced Pages page states an opinion as a fact without even trying to back it up. And yeah I know where sources generally are on Misplaced Pages articles, but there are none cited for the statement “Transwomen are women” – and I am not going through 38 cited sources to see if there’s anything about that in any of them. If you have a specific non-opinion source explaining why transwomen are women, cite it. But again, it isn’t even a matter of sources because we are dealing with opinions.

On a different note, why would these views be “radical”? I suspect that many average people across the globe consider transwomen to not be women – however, I don’t have anything to back that up, so I only mentioned large groups of which this is kind of known. If you are claiming this view is radical or fringe, back it up. In fact, if not viewing transwomen as women was a radical or fringe view, we wouldn’t have trans people complaining about not being accepted as whatever they claim to be by society, no? Doesn’t N. Wynn tell in a bunch of video essays about the struggles to “pass”, to actually being considered a woman?

No: On what planet would “transwomen are women …” reflect a more neutral consensus than “transwomen are people who consider themselves women …”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, you ask for sources, but then refuse to include the 38 non opinion (they would be unlikely to included here if they were) sources already provided and then say regarding your own opinion and arguement.... 'I don’t have anything to back that up' ~ BOD ~ 13:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I ask for sources for a very specific claim, but you refer to “all the sources” as if that’s how citing is done. That’s like saying “Oh, no: This and that is true, I’ve read it in Science magazine. Here are all the 38 issues which have articles on this topic. – Oh, what issue and article exactly for this specific claim? What, why are you asking this, are you refusing my sources?” So you seriously expect me to read all 38 sources to see if any of them argue that transwomen are women? It’s kind of childish at this point really.

And again, I don’t even try to bring in my opinion as a fact on the[REDACTED] page. You are the one who wishes to have an opinion claimed as a fact at a[REDACTED] page instead of implemeting a neutral wording. So you back it up. I merely conceded in a side issue (about whether my views are radical) – not even my actual issue – that I didn’t bring up an estimation (thinking many average people do not view transwomen as women) because I couldn’t back it up, and now you pretend like I can’t backup my argument. My argument doesn’t rely even in the slightest on probably half of earths population disagreeing with your notion, so I don’t need to back that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At the top of there's a big box that looks like this:

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about Neutral point of view, Wording of lede and Contradicts the articles woman and female. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: Neutral point of view Wording of lede Contradicts the articles woman and female Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

I suggest you read it and the links it contains and note the final comment: Restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even tendentious, unless consensus has changed or is likely to change. --John B123 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I did overlook this box. So I’ve read most of the votes in the straw poll and find none of the opposition of option 2 (the one I’m suggesting) is backed up by any good arguments and neither is much of the support for option 1. For instance, one voter claims this is backed up by reliable sources, but later on most of the listed sources are found to either not even mention the word “trans woman“ or to not defining it, and none of them to support the usage of option 1. Other voters opposing option 2 only refer to the “reliable sources” mentioned before and again others claim that option 2 is harmful as it is implicitly taking a side, namely that trans women are not women, by not explicitly taking the opposing side, namely that they are – so he or she argues we should take the opposing side to avoid taking sides. This doesn’t make sense in the slightest. Yet another one claims it’s a fact that transwomen are women (without backing this up of course) and not stating so would be “tiptoeing” and yet another opposition is grounded that option 2 implies the status of trans women as women rests upon something (again already presuming that trans women are women). Since we are to judge not merely by majority of vote, but also by quality of argument (if I got that right), I do not think that this settlement of consensus truly holds.

But okay – there has been a request for comment before. And even though I think it has been badly settled, I don’t want to push anyone further to change the wording in a situation like this. However, I propose to leave this talk section open and undeleted to see how many other people feel the same – that this is badly settled and that the wording still should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the opening isn't the option I thought was the best, but we have to go with the consensus. You're right, consensus isn't a count of votes, the strength of argument is very important, see WP:NOTVOTE. As this is not a formal discussion, it won't be "closed", nor will it be deleted. However it will get archived 120 days after the last comment is added. --John B123 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, as seen at Talk:Trans woman/Archive 5#Neutrality needed in opening description, I commented on the big RfC that took place in 2018. I noted that while there was consensus on a couple of things, there actually wasn't consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "identifies as a woman." The closer was clear about that. As you saw, about half of the participants supported "identifies as" and solid sources were provided for that wording. Because the opinions were about equally split, there was no consensus to change the lead sentence. The current lead sentence is a WP:Status quo matter. Misplaced Pages is stuck with it unless a new consensus is formed for changing it (WP:CCC). And given the previous big debate on it, that is unlikely. One can try to get it changed, of course, like you briefly did. And considering that it's been two years since the aforementioned RfC and it's different editors taking issue with the current lead wording, one might argue that WP:CCC's "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive" statement doesn't apply in this case. It does feel recent to me and others, though. WP:Forum shop, however, doesn't apply. Anyway, I wouldn't advise you to pursue this since taking it on will be very draining and another standstill is the likely result. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You write that “there actually wasn’t consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "idetifies as a woman.” – yes, that’s true. I should have written “the result has been badly interpreted” as I think that the votes for “is a woman” are badly justified, so I don’t even see it as a true stalemate. Superficially, the votes have been 18–17 support and 5–6 opposition for “is a woman” and “identifies as a woman”. But when I subtract votes with bad justifications (as laid out before), I get 11–17 and 5–1 or something (yieldig 6–16, a clear consensus for “identifies as woman”). (Only the linguistic reason “trans woman implies woman, and it’s shorter” stands, which I also think is very poor because the term “trans woman” itself was coined by a transgender activist and, so no wonder it implies “woman” – now what does this reflect? Nothing. It’s a loaded term upon which no further ontological case should rest. And furthemore, are “body builders” actual builders because it says so? Are “loan sharks” actual sharks?) What I, of course, personally think is going on is that[REDACTED] articles like this one are closely watched by trans activists who want to see firmly established that “trans women are women”, so they are overrepresented in the votes. I therefore think it is crucial to examine the reasons given for the votes, which in my view, just don’t hold up at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.124.38 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Discounting editors because you think they may be trans or activists, or assuming hidden intent, goes against a couple of the core principles of wikipedia, WP:Civility and WP:AGF. Highly suggest new editors start editing less contentious articles for a while to get the hang of wikipedia, it's culture and rules. Rab V (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t discount them because I think they are activists, I disagree with them and also think they are activists doing activism because their reasoning is so bad that it makes most sense to assume they argue not for the reasons they hold, but for the political objects they have. I have never argued on the grounds that they are activists. I merely wanted to say that I think that this activism is happening here, so one should be cautious lest[REDACTED] falls prey to political activism (and, well, I think it already has). In a direct discussion with someone, I would never assume bad intent on the other person’s side or accuse him of activism (even if I was convinced of it), let alone rest any arguments on this assumption. However, that shouldn’t hinder me to express a general concern I hold, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.124.38 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd advise some of the regular editors on this page to ask for a proof of work, so to speak (see below), before spending such large amounts of time in discussions we've had many times before. As such, to the anonymous user who started this section, can you provide three sources which are reliable for either the statement "trans women are not women" or the statement "it is disputed whether trans women are women"? If you cannot provide such sources than there is no reason why a Misplaced Pages article would support, implicitly or explicitly, either statement. A computer science term, "proof of work" is where you get an agent to prove that they've invested time in something before you agree to invest time in a response, so as to not be overloaded by the same requests over and over again. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what sources will be accepted for backing that something is an opinion instead of a fact (would it suffice to show some differing opinions?), but here are the three I have come up with: (1) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender says right from the start that “One possible way to understand ‘woman’ in this claim is to take it as a sex term: ‘woman’ picks out human females and being a human female depends on various biological and anatomical features (like genitalia)”. Later on, it discusses various opinions on this term, one being Theodore Bach’s, which excludes transwomen from being women. It even cites a contradicting opinion by Bettcher, after which Bach’s view is considered to be “mainstream”, saying: “Bettcher argues that there is more than one ‘correct’ way to understand womanhood: at the very least, the dominant (mainstream), and the resistant (trans) conceptions: Dominant views like that of Bach’s tend to erase trans people’s experiences ”. (2) Sophie Allen is a philosopher, who argues in an essay published on Medium that there are serious ontological problems with considering transwomen as women: Medium: If Transwomen are Women, What Is a Woman?. (3) And finally, here is a comment from feminist Catherine Bann, Peacenews: Trans Women are Trans Women upholding the view that female biology does matter regarding women’s issue and (implicitly) when considering whether trans women are women. The author quotes a transsexual women in the final passage saying “Women are members of the female sex. People born male just aren’t and never can be.” (possibly because she doesn’t dare to say it explicitly herself). That also shows that even amongst trans women, there is no consensus about whether trans women are women.

So, well. These are my three sources making clear that “trans women are women” is far from being an accepted fact, but is in reality a mere opinion, which is widely debated and contradicted.

I also still think that burden of proof lies on the one saying that something is a fact instead of the one saying that it isn’t. I still see no reliable sources for the case that transwomen are factually women. 78.49.135.228 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest registering an account if you wish to work on this article but that is up to you. It may be that there should be a section on any philosophical or semantic dispute over whether trans women are women. We would not have any trouble finding sources which say they are. Read up on WP:RS and do a little more research and this is a possibility. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reopened this talk page since it had been archived for non-holding reasons: (A) I have not once complained about trans women. (B) My case does not rest upon my sole opinion, nor have I explictly stated it. (C) I have only once been asked for sources – namely in the last post before this discussion had been archived, leaving me no chance to respond. I have now included sources. It does not make sense to leave this discussion archived. I kindly ask everyone to leave it open and not to revert my decision to re-open it. Alternatively, I would open a new talk section, but this would look confusing and unnecessarily clutter this talk page. Also, there would be no merit. Thank you! 78.49.135.228 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, do not remove comments after people have responded to them, Also, add signatures to all comments. Better yet, stop sealioning. If there is something here worth saying, surely you can cut to the chase and say it without these walls of text. All of this has already been discussed to death in the past, and repeating this as if it were brand new is not civil behavior, and is not productive. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for unrestricted speech. You do not have a right to say whatever you want on this or any talk page, and nobody is obligated to respond to your personal satisfaction. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion from my user talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not removed comments after people have responded to them. I only re-opened this talk section and removed my complaint about it being archived (to which noone has replied), replacing it by the explanation you now moved here. I have again removed this complaint, because it is irrelevant now, clutters this page and now Eggishorn has been so nice to link to the relevant discussion on his or her talk page. I also now moved my response to Bilorv at the right place. If you want to revert all this, feel free to do so, but it doesn’t make sense and only makes this talk section look confusing. Also, this is no sealioning. I have clearly stated an issue with this article and from then on, only responded. I think the request for comment has been badly decided for reasons I have already given, so it might be worth it to reconsider it. 93.132.191.74 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well, Equivamp, if you are to revert the changes I have made, it would obviously have been only fair to at least leave the comment I put here explaining the changes Imade. I also responded to Grayfell in this comment. At least my changes only removed my own comments. Now this is just rude. Please refrain from doing reverts which remove actual relevant discussion for the sake of restating irrelevant comments. 93.132.191.74 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not rude, because we don't go back and modify talk page comments unless there is a good reason. "I thought it was better this way" is not a good reason. I have previously directed you to the Talk Page Guidelines and I will again quote those here: But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.Emphasis added It doesn't matter that you don't think it was a direct reply, modifying comments, even your own, after the conversation has progressed is definitely and widely perceived as rude. Your refactoring of your own comments after DIYeditor and Greyfell responded is not a good practice for an effective conversation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I was specifically refering to having a comment of mine being removed by a revert – this is what I have considered “just rude”, not the revert itself. (I thought I had been pretty clear on this?) I don’t know what refactors you are talking about now, but in case you mean the change of order of the comments: I restored an original order, indicating who is replying to whom. How is that bad or “ineffective”? I also don’t know to whom it should be rude if I merely remove an obsolete comment, specifically addressed to you, which I have also repeated on your talk page, after the discussion on the talk page had been settled. Do you think it’s rude that I removed this after we talked about this at length at your talk page? If you want to continue this discussion, we should maybe again move to your talk page. There has been more than enough meta-discussion on this talk section …93.132.191.74 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Misplaced Pages's policy is to assume good faith. This means that, unless significant evidence is given to the contrary (such as vandalism), every editor should be treated under the assumption that they are only interested in helping the article, and they should not be attacked based on views they may not hold. I do agree that more neutral wording is needed in the opening definition of trans women, perhaps something along the lines of "A trans woman identifies as a woman and was assigned a sex other than female at birth." However, trans women should still generally be referred to as women and with she/her pronouns, as Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style states, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Mediator64 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This talk page needs...

...an important banner saying that "this is not the place to claim that the article should say trans women are not women". Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not accurate. This would be the place to provide evidence that the terminology is incorrect. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you’re hinting at my proposal: I was proposing that the article should not say trans women are women, not that it should say that “trans women are no women”. For this, it would suffice to argue that the terminology is dubious rather than incorrect (which I did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.68.27 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is the first result when someone searches “what is the life expectancy of trans women of colour” but it is false. It was actually written by an anti trans organisation and they are claiming that a statistic that has been proven true is false. This should be removed TPSOA (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The article states that the statistic is false although widely disseminated. --Equivamp - talk 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

'Trans women are women who are assigned male at birth' is inaccurate, it should read 'Trans women are men who prefer to be recognised as female' Battleofwuhan (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lenny230's edits

Can anyone watch Lenny230's edits of this article; making sure they're good?? (Somebody other than Lenny please respond to this before Lenny himself does.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

   Why are you in such a rush?  My contributions are 100% verifiable and with valid sources. (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to use the definition of "Trans woman" used by leading institutions.

I have done research and found that the following institutions (whose credibility, prestige and pro LGBT policies are widely known) use the following definitions of "trans woman":

1. HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Sexual and Gender Minority Health Equity Initiative

  "An individual assigned male at birth and identifies as a girl or woman"
   Source: https://lgbt.hms.harvard.edu/terminology

2. STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Vaden Health Services

  "Someone who was male assigned at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum"
   Source: https://vaden.stanford.edu/health-resources/lgbtqia-health/transgender-health/glossary-terms-related-transgender-communities

3. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: LGBT Center - The Language of Gender

  "A child or adult who was born anatomically male but has a female gender identity"
   Source: http://lgbt.princeton.edu/resources

4. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, School of Medicine - Glossary of Transgender Terms

  "Someone assigned the male gender at birth who identifies on the female spectrum"
   Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/glossary-of-terms-1

5. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION - Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People

  "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male, but who identifies as a woman"
   Source:  https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

6. PLANNED PARENTHOOD - Transgender Identity Terms and Labels

  "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male but whose gender identity is female"
   Source: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/transgender/transgender-identity-terms-and-labels

In conclusion:

• As you can verify NONE of them use the phrase "A trans woman is a woman" which is the phrase used in the article (without any reference).

• ALL of the institutions indicated use the formula: "What the person is biologically + What the person identifies with". If we are to follow the principle of Misplaced Pages which is to use valid references and verifiable sources this is the definition formula that the article must use for the time being.

I propose to use the following phrase: "A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum" . The proposed definition is a summary of the definitions detailed lines above.

Lenny230 (talk) 5 July 2020, 16:47 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenny230 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In other words, do you really think trans women are not women?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: This has been discussed on multiple occasions before and no consensus to change the opening sentence has been achieved. Please see the box above this page's table of contents for links to previous discussions. --John B123 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition should not be what person 1 or person 2 "thinks". If the definition is debatable then it should come from a verifiable consensus which is what I am proposing with valid sources and verifiable references. Can you show references from leading institutions using the phrase "a trans woman is a woman" as a formal definition? Lenny230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Can one of the watchers of this page link us to the RfC mentioned recently here in the edsum, so that Lenny and I can see why we are writing the article in a way that Lenny objects to? It will help both of us. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction --John B123 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you John, I shall read it carefully. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hah, it's huge. Don't expect to hear from me for a while. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a no, for reasons that have been rehashed at length in previous discussions (linked above). Cheers, -sche (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable to have a definition without valid references or verifiable sources. Seems some editors are imposing their own agenda here on Misplaced Pages. The principle of neutral content is breached. --Lenny230 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in English imposes a definition out of sync with the one used by Misplaced Pages in other languages

It is understood that Misplaced Pages in any given language is completely independent of other editions of Misplaced Pages and they are all under no obligation to be replicas of one another. However if all editions of Misplaced Pages are to follow the same principles (especially the principle of neutral content) it is expected that Misplaced Pages articles in different languages covering the same topic should have a reasonable and fair amount of resemblance.

Having said that, this is a sample of the definitions of "trans woman" in 3 languages other than English (French, Spanish and Portuguese). The reader will be able to notice that the following definitions do show resemblance:

1. Misplaced Pages in French: article "Femme trans"

Original definition in French: "Une femme trans ou femme transgenre est un être humain ayant été assigné homme à la naissance et qui a une identité de genre féminine"
English translation: "A trans woman or transgender woman is a human being who has been assigned male at birth and who has an identity of feminine gender"

2. Misplaced Pages in Spanish: article "Mujer transgénero"

Original definition in Spanish: "Una mujer transgénero, —abreviadamente mujer trans—, es una persona que nace con sexo masculino, pero percibe su identidad de género como femenina."
English translation: "A transgender woman, -in brief trans woman-, is a person who has been born with male sex, but perceives their gender identity as feminine"

3. Misplaced Pages in Portuguese: article "Mulher trans"

Original definition in Portuguese: "Uma mulher trans é uma pessoa que foi atribuída ao sexo ou género masculino ao nascer que possui uma identidade de gênero feminina"
English translation: "A trans woman is a person who was attributed (assigned to) male sex or gender at birth who possesses an identity of feminine gender"

As illustrated the definitions of trans woman in other Wikipedias use the formula: "What the person is biologically + What person identifies with". NONE of them uses the equivalent of "A trans woman is woman" used in Misplaced Pages in English.

References

1. Harvard Medical School: Sexual and Gender Minority Health Equity Initiative Terminology: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and More Retrieved July 4, 20202
2. Stanford University: Vaden Health Services Glossary of Terms Related to Transgender Communities Retrieved July 4, 2020
3. Princeton University: LGBT Center Resources, The Language of Gender[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwWwPT2QBxT6YmVSSEk1VzBjOFE/view Gender Spectrum Retrieved July 4, 2020
4. Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine: Glossary of Transgender Terms Retrieved July 4, 2020
5. American Psychological Association: Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People – Appendix A - Definitions, Page 863 Retrieved July 4, 2020
6. Planned Parenthood: Transgender Identity Terms and Labels Retrieved July 4, 2020
7. Femme trans, Misplaced Pages in French.
8. Mujer transgénero, Misplaced Pages in Spanish.
9. Mulher trans, Misplaced Pages in Portuguese.

--Lenny230 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias are not reliable sources for use in en.WP articles. As to the other concerns, they are discussed in the section above (and are non-starters for the reasons given there and in previous discussions linked to from there). Cheers! -sche (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is no neutrality on this page and personal agendas are imposed so easily then there is no point to continue as a donor --Lenny230 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

First link

I'm confused by the first link in this article - behind the word "woman". It leads to an article that defines "woman" as "female human being", which in turn leads to an article that defines "female" in biological terms. Are trans women biologically female?

NB This is a rhetorical question intended to draw attention to a possible internal contradiction on Misplaced Pages, and not an attempt to start a discussion about whether or not trans women are biologically female.

H Remster (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

^Not sure this is even a productive statement. Can you point out what you are talking about and how it relates to an issue with the article? Generally speaking the correct term would be source/citation rather than link. Sxologist (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the first link, i.e. hyperlink, in the first sentence of the article. H Remster (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the link, noting that the Woman article itself explicitly scopes itself as encompassing trans women (and, as discussed on that article's talk page, it's ironic that some people try to either use or take "female" as an exclusionary definition of woman when trans women feel it applies perfectly well to them, since the word "female" too can and often does refer to gender). -sche (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been broken again. (Note: As a long serving wikieditor, I understand what is going on here. Long term watchers of this page are just enforcing community consensus in this area, and all the rather premptory and rude appearing responses from them to newbies are the result of long term "fedupness" with newbies criticising. Get used to it watchers. Trying to explain this fact about[REDACTED] is something you should become expert at, because it makes little sense to a newbie, or anybody with an ordinary science education.) -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

lol. -sche (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm neither surprised nor bothered by the rudeness, but I appreciate the comment. I did notice that the Woman article contains the phrase "trans women", but also that it starts with the sentence "A woman is a female human being" and links to a page that defines "female" in biological terms. So either the Woman article is self-contradictory, or it's using the phrase "trans women" in a sense that doesn't entail that trans women are women. Perhaps it's the Woman or the Female article that needs to be amended. H Remster (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2020 (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
• Unassessed Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles