Talk:Transsexual/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Okay, the following text was added to the article:

Thus a person may have breasts and in general look like a female but with penis and scrotum. Such persons are called ladyboy or shemale. For a picture see the section Bakla.net in Shock site. (See also intersexual.)

The problem is, this information adds nothing to the discussion at hand (even though it was used originally to REPLACE the majority of FTM material in the article) and it is very, very POV. Why?

1. This info is both incorrect and incomplete.
2. All of this only applies to MTF, and none to FTM transsexuals.
3. It appears from the tone and the fact the Shock site was linked that it was intended to be shocking information, which is in itself a very biased thing to add as it is an implied indictment of the individual pictured.
4. The terms that are used, shemale and ladyboy are considered HIGHLY derisive and would be the equivalent to adding a list of anti-semetic epithets under an article on Judaism.
5. IF this information is going to be added, it should be put under some topic on either pornography or auto-eroticism, or a separate page should be created for shemale, and a redirect to it from ladyboy, perhaps with the addition of terms like admirer and a discussion of minority groups and specifically Queer persons in the adult industries.

I think it is odd to say about a link to an informative picture of a type of transsexual that it does not belong in the Transsexual article. Also it is just a nude picture, not a sexual one. - Patrick 11:23 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

IMO, adding such a picture here would imply something like "Look how gross those people are!". I adds nothing to the point of the article, which is transsexuality. Many, if not most, transsexuals are very much ashamed of their genitals and try to have them changed through surgery as quickly as possible. Showing a picture of someone in that (often temporary) state would be insulting to transsexuals and would only serve 'shock value', just like the sites listed at shock site. -- Kimiko 12:40 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, if you think many transsexuals feel uncomfortable with a link from here to such a picture, we can dispense with it. Certainly I do not say "Look how gross those people are!", I treat it more as a normal variation than you do. - Patrick 21:06 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If the addition cannot be edited in one of these manners, I would like to simply delete it. Thanks, Paige 12:08 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I removed the link to the derogative shock site, even before I read your message, I agree, I think this article needs more work. -- Rotem Dan 12:29 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I look into this in more detail when I have time, for now I just want to explain that I linked to the Shock site because there was the link to the related picture, not because I wanted to suggest that it is shocking. - Patrick 12:49 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Paige, the info about FTMs was only moved down, not removed. But that has been fixed now.

I think that whole paragraph (the one about shemale) should be removed. It is about persons who do not want surgery for non-medical/non-financial reasons, ie. not transsexuals. If you really want to keep it somewhere, it should be moved to transgender. -- Kimiko 13:51 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it is not always so easy to say "those persons are not transsexuals". The individuals reason not to have surgery may just as well be a simply a financial one, and in the meantime shw works in the sex industry. We ought to remember that there are still enough countries where the sex industry is about the only place transwomen can earn money. And from what I hear in the US, I am quite certain that you would find such cases there, too. In those cases, "shemale" is a marketing thing, not necessarily a self description.

I do suggest to cut out this paragraph, too. Maybe a small paragraph about transgender people in the sex industry would be a good idea, since many people seem to assume, that most transgender people work in the sex industry. Also, that belongs IMO in the "transsexual" article, simply because people would be looking here, even if some of these transgender sex workers might not be "transsexual" in the strict sense of the word. Then again, the rules and identities in the sex industry seems to differ slightly, anyway, putting much less emphasis on genital reassigmnet surgery. It seems inappropriate then to make statements like "those persons are not transsexuals", since probably non of us can make any really informed statements. AlexR 16:12 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like the real information that has any bearing on this article is already conveyed elsewhere (i.e. the description of non-ops). I think if the readers cannot use their imagination to derive what a non-op (or persons in transition) must look like, then they will not understand the rest of the article anyway.

Well, it is interesting to see how much somebody from the waist up can look female, while in the crotch looking male. It is clearer from the picture than from the current text. - Patrick 11:23 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Gee, how interesting.. Ugh! This is meant to be a serious article about a serious disorder, not to give sensation seekers something to gawk at. If that's what you want, go to shock site and follow the links.
The fact that TSs will have characteristics of both sexes for some time during transition should be obvious from the description. -- Kimiko 12:40 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed to be interesting, and I was using the term in the positive sense, not related to sensationalism. - Patrick 21:06 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As for the terms shemale and ladyboy (which should really be katoey -sp?-), they are not technical terms, they are slurs. Slurs are not POV, in my opinion, unless you were to un-bold them, italicize them, and move it over to transphobia. There are a lot of nasty words you could put into an article like this; that doesn't mean they belong here. Paige

I think it's debatable how much of a slur these words are when referring to trans*-people in the sex industry, where those words seem to be common, and are used by those people themselfes. However, unless there is an informed bit or article about trans-people in the sex industry, it seems best to leave them out.
As for interesting, there is definitely a difference between interesting and merely sensational. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Again, an informed article might be a good idea, but without one that kind of information belongs no more in an article about trans-people that information about (cis-)female prostitution belongs into a short, general article about women. AlexR 06:36 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

And as for intersexual, that term certainly doesn't belong here, not in that context at least. Persons born intersexual are NOT and by definition cannot be called transsexuals, whether they transition from their assigned sex or not. It's a matter best discussed in that article, though, not this one. Paige

That depends on the definition -- while formally intersexuality is usually excluded, I can show you many people who have an intersexed condition and are referred to "the transgender way" if they want to chance gender. So a reference to IS is quite appropriate. AlexR 16:12 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's exactly my point that intersexed persons can be TRANSGENDER, but they cannot be transsexual. TG and TS are not synonymous, and we shouldn't try to make them so. (All TSs are TG; some ISs are also TG; still, no IS can be called a TS.) It really doesn't add anything to the Wikipedia; we should try to be precise and factual with these articles. I think the IS discussion should be written, but under IS or TG, not TS. Paige 19:09 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Uhm, I hate to burst your balloon, Paige, but ISs can be TS. Check your DSM-IV. IS is excluded under criterion C of Gender Identity Disorder (302.85), but is listed as example 1 for Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (302.6). As Alex pointed out, IS individuals can change from their assigned sex. I have met such a person online once. -- Kimiko 20:50 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

(as wikipedia quotes on its own article on GID...) Martin

And I should have been more precise: If something goes wrong, many IS are referred to "the transsexual way", with all the formal procedures that are, technically, limited to transsexuals. (Which the HBIGA-SOCs and DSM don't, but the ICD does, for example.) They even get the diagnosis TS, either to cover up previous mistakes, or because "experts" insist that the IS condition has nothing to do with gender identity. (Usually not exactly based on facts.)

Also, the process of changing gender (and/or sex) for say a person with Klinefelter's does not differ much, if at all, from that of a person changing gender with a completely normal set of chromosomes. In fact, I know several cases where it was either only checked years after transitioning, or the patient was told years after transitioning, that in fact they were IS, not TS. And that means those people transitioned, medically and legaly and socialy, as transsexuals.

And, as for the number of IS changing gender: There is a lot of them out there, from many of the intersexed conditions, including both those treated (or abused, often depending on whom you ask) as children and those who never knew they were and who were never checked for IS. AlexR 11:57 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few IS change gender; I think that's undebated. However, most definitions of Transsexual exclude IS formally. The issues for example for a person with Klinefelters Syndrom who change gender are pretty much the same, though, as those of transsexuals (or other transgender, of course). -- AlexR 22:35 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I really do beleive that Patrick had no intention of POVing this when he added that, and was probably even unaware of the issues involving those terms. I'm not trying to point fingers. Obviously, though, I take this personally (which is certainly my own mistake) and I also would like to see the paragraph removed. Paige 14:25 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I've found an interesting guide called "Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language", written by the "Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern American Psychological Association " that may be useful for many of the articles here, here's an excerpt of the introduction:

This document was developed to assist authors in avoiding bias when writing specifically about lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons, as well as in general discussions of sexuality.

http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html

Can anyone give me an advice for a better place on wikipedia to put a link to this? It may be useful to put it where many writers will see it..

-- Rotem Dan 14:10 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I beleive all of the related GLB articles could use the link placed at the bottom, don't you? However, I didn't spot anything there that applies to TG or TS, so maybe not this article. Good find, though! Paige

There's a list of similar guides on non-sexist language - I suggest you add it there. Martin 14:34 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if it's public domain, there is a copyright notice: "PsychNET® © 2003 American Psychological Association" what do you think? -- Rotem Dan 14:36 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's very definitely not public domain, then, and can't been included here unless the APA donate it under the terms of the GFDL. The Anome 14:39 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I assumed so -- Rotem Dan 14:40 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

However, you could put it under external links, couldn't you? -- Kimiko 14:45 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of plagiarizing it and incorporating it into non-sexist language page... (mwahahaha..) but a link is fine.. :) -- Rotem Dan 15:07 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

shemale is not a slur

I beg to disagree that shemale is not a valid term for a portion of the transsexual population. I am transsexual but I also feel that "shemale" best describes that I embrace the erotic part about being between genders for the time being. SRS is somewhat desireable to me but only if I am granted rights and acceptance as a female not as a gay male.

While many argue that "shemale" is strictly the porn industry's definition of a transsexual, there is an underground movement that embrace the term. Dissection of what it means to fans of porn yeilds that a shemale is a beautriful woman that they would never suspect of having anything male on her body.

A shemale is often a super attractive person who typically lives as a female fulltime but has a penis and is not injuring herself to get rid of it. While she may or may not wish to use her penis during sex, she has found peace from her inner gender conflict. Most likely she has taken feminizing hormones, had plastic surgery or a combination of both.

Admirers of shemales are generally shocked that the term could be taken as an insult since they actually see them as the epitomy of the best of both genders.

Um, to many it actually is a slur. Many would describe you as a non-operative transsexual, perhaps. If you go and talk to a transsexual woman and refer to her as a shemale, I don't think you'd get much happiness in return. Dysprosia 03:52, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ummm, the point is that "shemale" isn't offensive to all transsexuals. For some transsexuals, shemale is a term that more accurately reflects a circumstance of a transsexual's current sexual condition, not the decision about Sex (Gender) Reassignment Surgery. I like the term because of what it means to the lay-person. In fact, being called a non-op transsexual is far more offensive to me because it implies that the transsexual is inferior and that the "op" is the only confirmation of what is psychologically happening. -- Chantral

I agree. AFAIK, shemale is not used by anyone who seriously considers themselves a woman (ie. most MtF transsexuals). In fact, use of this term will get one labeled as outsider (or at least misguided) by most of the TS community. Whether there are some other (sub)cultures where this term is used in the way you describe above I don't know. If you still want to add it to WP, I suggest the transgender article, but please clearly explain which group of people use it that way. -- Kimiko 13:47, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you all now know of someone that uses "shemale" and who seriously considers herself a woman (and is a diagnosed MtF transsexual). What facts are there that self-identified shemales do not consider themselves women? I suspect research could prove this is a belief propagated by transsexuals that find the term shemale offensive for reasons about how the term reflects back on transsexuals as a whole. Most transsexuals, I have heard this from, want to fight any presumption that transsexuals are a product of pornography. In fact, the only people I know of that use shemale derrogatorily are transsexuals describing other transsexuals as being sluts or fakes. Perhaps, it might be in the interest of all to provide all relevant information so people can draw their own conclusions regarding truth. I had hoped we could clarify how people, who respect transsexuals' fortitude against society to change their physical gender seldom intend shemale as a cut-down or slur...regardless of how the bulk of highly sensitive transsexuals interpret it. Shemale is a word that will stay because it has entered pop-culture. It probably deserves it's own article to maintain the clarity of what is under transsexual. -- Chantral

I think the issue is not about sensitivity, but to the issue of a transsexual woman taking on a label that implies that she is somehow a half-woman or half-female (she-male). In my mind and probably yours too, a transsexual woman is not a half-woman.

I do not wish to get too much into a heated argument about this in any case, but if you feel strongly about this, take Kimiko's advice and add to the transgender article. Dysprosia 00:03, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And you are saying that the term transsexual does NOT imply that a person is part opposite gender? Who made you the one to decide whether someone is comfortable about stating they are a shemale? Is this a power trip or lack of reality? This is precisely the sort of thoughtless prejudice facing people, like me, who are comfortable being partial-crossgendered. Too many irrational people want to make it a non-speak term because of their own personal issues regarding properness.

Shemales are a mental, emotional and physical balance of male and female. Shemale is what I am. I am glad to find a position of balance in this partially transitioned state. I am so tired of measuring up to predjudiced people who assume everyone wants painful, risky cosmetic surgery that yields inferior looking results so they might have sex in a manner that meshes with their mental concept of being female.

Shemale was already touched on under the transgender article. While it is minimal, it might possibly be enough for that article. There is simply too much to say about halfway living. I think there could be a link to a more detailed article about the phenomenon and the TG community's diametrically opposed viewpoints regarding the shemale term and the frequent bigotry toward the person as being considered a fake TS.

Incidentally, I just learned there is a newly coined term which is likely to be more digestible to the morality-brainwashed people, it is "Transgenderist". While the terms may change, the phenomenon exists. You can be assured that this half/half state will remain until surgery is affordable, safe and a legally accepted sex change for all aspects of society (i.e. no chromosone arguments).

Wait a sec, isn't it is the job of an encyclopedia to carefully document what is, not decide what should be? Your statements against having better shemale documentation are POV and not compelling rationale in my opinion. I see no reason for not having a shemale/transgenderist/non-op article to explore the issues further. Chantral 20:59, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I said I'm not going to get into a heated argument, so i'll just say to you that if you're comfortable about saying that you are a shemale then I'm backing you 100% for you to do so. I don't mean to take that away from you, put you down or speak unkindly of you re what I've been saying, I'm just trying to express my feelings on the matter: that it's just probably not a term for everyone. Dysprosia 23:12, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Do you always appear so opinionated and stubborn when you are not going to get into a heated argument? I still disagree that the Transgendered article should be added to (bloated) in order to cover all I have tried explaining regarding this. It's clear that you disagree, but you offer no further rationale aside from your particular "feelings" that shemale is not a term for "everyone". I never claimed it was a term for everyone...but then again neither is transsexual, non-op TS, pre-op TS, post-op TS, crossdresser, transvestite or transgendered.

I appreciate objective viewpoints regarding this definition. There should be no argument if we stick to logical rationale rather than "feelings". Hearing no further objections, I intend to draft an article regarding half-transistioned transsexuals, shemale-ism and transgenderists. Chantral 01:45, 04 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't mean to be cruel, harsh, opinionated nor stubborn - if I come across that way do trust this is unintentional and I do apologize for that - all I've wanted to do is put forward my views and ideas on the matter. I've already expressed my rationale before (but i'll do so again in a different way), that to me a transsexual woman is to me a woman, regardless of transition status. A shemale to me isn't a half-woman (she) half-man (male), she is entirely a woman, in my eyes. The implication of male-ness in the word shemale does not sit right with me, and this is why I do not like the terminology.

However I suppose this point is rather moot now. All I have remaining to say really on the matter is that if you wish to write an article about transsexuals midway in the transition process (a point: the transition process is not exactly finite - many cosmetic surgeries can be performed after SRS, for instance), then you should do so, and to paraphrase Voltaire or whoever it was, "i'll defend your right to the death to do so" :) Dysprosia 03:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

transsexual vs. transexual

Transexual with one s, eh? That's a new one for me. Where did you pick that up, Montrealais? I always thought it was mangled that way because people just couldn't spell. -- Kimiko 14:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ditto. One s is news to me... Dysprosia 14:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are more Google hits for "transexual" than there are for the "correct" spelling. Shocking indictment of 21st century education, or emerging linguistic trend? Who can say... --Camembert

'Transexual' is the preferred spelling of the Transexual Menace organization. -- N8chz

Google says: 510 for "transsexual menace" and 838 for "transexual menace". I couldn't find a page that explains what the 'preferred' spelling is. -- Kimiko 00:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My source is one of the leading lights of the group Canadian Transexuals Fight for Rights, who is very specific about using the one-s spelling for the reasons I wrote. (I did say some transexuals.) - Montréalais

---