Talk:Cross-dressing

Survey

• Support two words for the same thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: why was I pinged? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 15:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to ping everyone who commented previously both for and against merging. In 2024 you wrote that you were in favor, but if that is still your opinion please could you repeat it here so we can keep the whole discussion in one place. If you don’t reply I will assume you now neither support nor oppose. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Support per SergeWoodzing. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 17:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• Makes sense. It looks like the material in Transvestism is covered here, so there's redundancy which we don't want, but I think maybe it's a little better organized in that article (not sure) so it'd take a little thought. Also that means losing all the talk page threads in Transvestism which seems a shame... I'll ask on Help. Herostratus (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Herostratus Don’t worry it won’t be a delete but a redirect, so all that talk will still be readable by future historians Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, currently the material in Transvestism is also covered here. That is because it was copied here May 11 (see banner above). It should not have been, and arguing for a merge now because of duplication cause by an earlier unilateral merge is circular. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:Article title policy, as these are two separate topics, closely related but with different focus, each with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Details and examples in the § Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• oppose I am not sure of the sources, and gender-related sources do update every few years, but my understanding of "cross dressing" is a person wearing gender non-conforming clothes, whereas "transvestism" refers to a transgender person wearing clothes that conform to their gender. "Cross dressing" can either be for any reason including fun or identity expression, whereas transvestism is usually a medical term describing that that people whose gender does not conform to assignment at birth have feelings that they need to wear clothes that match their gender identity. I know sources are required but I do not immediately have any. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  "transvestism" refers to a transgender person wearing clothes that conform to their gender. That is not correct, transvestites are not transgender people. Katzrockso (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  That's not true. Tranvestites can be trans people. Not all are, but some certainly are, as far as I understand it. It's not a one-to-one, by which I mean that some transvestites are trans, but others are not. Also, as far as I know "transvestites" is a generally outdated term which not that many people use anymore. Historyday01 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Insofar as anyone can be a 'transvestite', yes, 'transvestites' can be trans people. Katzrockso (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Right - there were no transgender people when transvestism was a medical pathology. It is all speculative, but I think if contemporary ideas of transgender identity had been in the past, then a lot of the people medically diagnosed as "transvestite" would have been better called "transgender". Another use of the term transvestite was for the paraphilia, now commonly seen as a fetish or kink, and nowadays that and transgender identity are different when previously in societal discourse they were close enough to being the same. Transvestism was not really a term for female impersonation, which is a kind of cross dressing. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  In case anyone has not noticed we also have articles Travesti (gender identity) and Transvestic fetishism, so I think we have too many articles on very similar subjects Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  That is normal; they are different topics. Each "title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". Would you be surprised to know that there are over 1,500 articles with "World War II" in the title? We don't merge them because they are different articles on notable topics, distinguished by their different titles, even though they are all somehow related to World War II. Same thing here, on a more modest scale. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: Listed at WT:WikiProject Medicine and WT:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support: I understand the argument of Mathglot that these are separate topics, and what Bluerasberry is saying, but as I see it the material in Transvestism is covered here already, so I'd say it makes sense to merge them together, as the topics are related enough to be together as one page, as long as Transvestism is kept as a redirect which can be used if needed for relevant articles. Any content that hasn't been merged can surely be added to this page already. There are have been various proposals to merge the pages together back in 2010-2011, 2018, and 2024, but nothing happened. I say it is time to merge the pages together. It does not make sense to keep them separate anymore in order to make it simpler for users, editors, and reduce possible redundancy. I honestly have not seen, as of yet, a convincing argument as to why the pages should not be merged. I would even argue that Mathglot's contention that there is "overlap in the two topics," despite saying that terms are "not synonymous" (and saying they are notable on their own), is enough of a justification on its own to support a merger. I do not disagree that Cross-dressing should be a longer article and I actually feel that merging in Transvestism could help it become a longer, and potentially stronger, article, in my view at least. I know others on here may disagree with me, but that's okay.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Covered here already" has already been explained above as circular, and there is no policy or guideline obliging anyone to explain why two pages should *not* be merged; it is the other way round. Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOPAGE is the relevant guideline here, which states Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. This is most definitely the case here. Katzrockso (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOPAGE is a valid objection when a topic has limited sources available, the article is maxed out in size based on every possible source that can be dug up, and still remains pretty much a stub with no reasonable opportunity for expansion. Then it should indeed be considered for merger per WP:NOPAGE. But not when there are hundreds of academic sources with Transvestism in the title (and no mention of cross-dressing in title or body). In such cases, the topic is both notable and expandable, and not subject to a NOPAGE merger. (And this is without considering book sources at all, which would no doubt increase the pool of available sources further.) Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Transvestism" carries medicalization connotations that are not intrinsic to cross-dressing. During Shakespeare's time the roles of women were played by men and boys, this happened similarly with kabuki in Japan. These are appropriate to mention in this cross-dressing article, but would not be considered transvestism. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Transvestism" was the medicalization of cross-dressing, not a separate social phenomena. Katzrockso (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Transvestism" wasn't applied to cross-dressing in general, such as in the examples I gave. A woman dressing as a man for her safety, such as with Joan of Arc, would have been said to have engaged in cross-dressing, but would not have been said to have engaged in transvestism. "Transvestism" was applied to medically relevant cross-dressing, or at least, what was considered medically relevant to Westerners in the 20th century. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously WP:CFORK that while might present notability, is best covered at the page Cross-dressing as a section rather than an independent page, per WP:NOPAGE.Katzrockso (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Some sources that cover these as the same topic:

  Encyclopedia Brittanica , which has one page titled transvestism, with a note at the top Also known as: cross-dressing, crossdressing, eonism.

  , a paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior titled Transvestism: a survey of 1032 cross-dressers.

  As it currently stands, there is no encyclopedic merit to covering these topics separately. Perhaps if an editor seeks to expand the article to incorporate more content, but as it currently stands, Transvestism is almost entirely a WP:RFORK of Cross-dressing#Transvestism.

  "Transvestism" is the medical categorization of cross-dressers, there is no reason to present a separate article on this topic. Katzrockso (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Once again, the circular argument. You have it exactly backwards: Transvestism is not a fork of Cross-dressing, rather, section Cross-dressing#Transvestism was taken directly from Transvestism. Large chunks of Transvestism were copied into Cross-dressing in this edit. You cannot claim a fork or duplicate content to support a merge now, based on material copied *from* Transvestism in an earlier merge attempt. This is not complicated. Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Then remove the content from Cross-dressing if you so wish, but I don't know we would want to remove encyclopedic, reliably sourced and relevant content from the Cross-dressing article that only seeks to improve its comprehensiveness. As I noted above, the contents of the Transvestism article are not long enough to warrant a WP:SPINOFF and are currently best covered at Cross-dressing.

  Either way, the description of WP:RFORK provides no requirement that the content housed at one article be added at any particular point in time for it to be accurately called a redundant fork. The fact of the matter is that there is no good policy-based reason to have the entirety of one article also housed on another.

  Can you find any sources that state that transvestism is a separate phenomenon than cross-dressing, rather than a historically particular term to refer to the phenomena? Katzrockso (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  As of 2025, britannica.com had "well over 100,000 articles" while Wikipedia had seven million. No wonder Britannica only has one article. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  The median Wikipedia article is many times smaller than the median Britannica article. I don't think even if they had 7 million articles they would create two articles on the same topic, since their curators don't like to write more than necessary Katzrockso (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct imho that removing the content from Cross-dressing would be the right approach, but I am not sure that is advisable in the middle of an Rfc; it might look like an aggressive, or sneaky move. There will be time to remove it afterward if there is no consensus to merge. Otherwise, where are you getting your info? Here's what I found:

  Wikipedia stats:

  • median article size in bytes: 114,365^[1]
  • median article size in words: 710^[2]
  • median article size in words: 300–350 words^[3]

  Encyclopædia Britannica stats (print edition, 15th ed.):

  • fewer than 750 words^[4]

  Encyclopædia Britannica online (britannica.com) stats:

  • 677 words (2012)^[5]
  • 370 words^[6]

  Your info doesn't seem to hold up. Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  The cross-dressing article should include content from the transvestism article, but it should be a summary rather than a full duplication.ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Precisely, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  What you describe as the "median article size in words" being 710 is actually the mean; giving a mean of about 710 words per article. As noted in WP:STATISTICS, linked by you, As of 2024, about half of articles are marked as stubs. The median article contains about 300–350 words, or 13 sentences. About half of articles contain four or fewer references. The byte size is based on a completely non-random subset of articles that are described as "articles every Wikipedia should have", which obviously would be longer than the typical article on Wikipedia.

  I was unable to verify the 370 words figure with any source, but given that it has remained unchanged since December 2004 and cites Wikipedia as the original source , I doubt we can trust this figure. Katzrockso (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Worth keeping even if the term is dated, the term is still prevalent and searched for by people on the internet... and there are distinctions between transvestism and crossdressing. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  That's a great argument for a redirect to a subsection, not a separate article. Katzrockso (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The merge should be undone and the topic of cross-dressing as a pathology (and, possibly, as a crime) should be covered in depth at Transvestism. pburka (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  The paraphilic disorder is already covered in Transvestic fetishism. Laws against crossdressing are very rare nowadays and are covered in country articles such as LGBTQ rights in Nigeria#Other criminalized behaviors. Some historical laws are in History of cross-dressing#US laws against crossdressing and Transvestite pass. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, related but not identical concepts. Wikipedias in 41 languages have an article for transvestism. Plantdrew (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support per Historyday01. The two concepts are basically inter-related and the overlap is large enough that it doesn't make sense to keep two separate articles on the topic. I'm not really following the logic of the "oppose" votes here, any slight difference in nuance can be easily covered by explanatory text in the merged article, and this does a lot more for reader understanding than keeping two articles on the same topic just because there are slight terminology impliciations.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, not synonyms. Hoiwever both articles deserve heavy rewriting, because both are chaotic texts. --Altenmann >talk 21:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

The two terms are not synonymous, both are WP:Notable, and thus per WP:Article title policy, each merits their own article. There is clearly an overlap in the two topics, just as there is an overlap in Gay and Homosexuality; in Lesbian, Butch and femme; and Dyke; and in Transgender, Trans woman and Kathoey (and half a dozen other topics), but that doesn't mean they are the same topic, just related ones. Same thing here, with Cross-dressing and Transvestism (and let's not forget Drag).

A great deal could be said on the subject, starting with the fact that merging the two conflates neutral behavior with pathology and medical study of a proposed paraphilia, and hides or de-emphasizes the historical shift in understanding that left transvestism as a largely outdated term. As I see it, Cross-dressing should be much the longer article (as it is), and Transvestism should be shorter (as it is) and more limited to the original medical context, development and use of the term, culminating in its becoming outdated, and the evolution in theoretical understanding. There is plenty of significant coverage of transvestism, so notability is not at issue here. Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S., an earlier version of this comment, including the rationale for undoing the blanking of the Transvestism article, can be found here. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I am noticing a certain amount of commentary about the term transvestism being largely outdated today. While I think everyone here agrees it is outdated, it isn't entirely clear whether this is being raised as a reason to support a merge, or just making general commentary. In fact, whether a term or the concept it designates is or isn't outdated is not relevant in a merge discussion like this one, any more than it would be in Uranian (sexuality), Phlogiston theory, or Transsexuality, as we have plenty of articles on outdated concepts and terms. If the concept or the term are outdated, then we simply say so in the article about it. Notability determines whether we can have an article about something, not whether it is outdated. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't write so much: Eventually some poor uninvolved editor is going to have to read through all this to close the discussion. Having said that it would be great if more people could give their opinion in a sentence or two, especially new editors or students on the courses above (don't worry about format as we old lags can tidy that). Chidgk1 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: Listed at WT:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WT:WikiProject Fashion. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

A suggestion was made above to expand Transvestism to better show the differences between the two topics, so I have begun that process. Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Major rewrite complete - transvestism

• before
• after

Thanks Mathglot for doing heroic major editing to differentiate transvestism from cross-dressing. The approach they took was to present transvestism as a medical description, and cross-dressing as an activity, which I think is a fair approach to presenting these topics. Checking the article lead before and after versions in the links above demonstrates Mathglot's attempt to differentiate the term. The text may not be perfect or finished, but I am impressed with the extent of the change in scope.

There is room for disagreement and this may not change how people feel about a merge / split, but I hope that everyone appreciates the attempt to advance the discussion on this issue. Ping commentators @Chidgk1, Mistdreamer, SergeWoodzing, Thetechie, Herostratus, Katzrockso, Historyday01, ເສລີພາບ, Zenomonoz, Pburka, and Plantdrew: - how do you all feel about emphasis on medical approach here? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated, but just to be clear, it is nowhere near complete; the current version is a skeleton still full of gaps pointing the way to future enhancements (e.g., the section about Freud is still t.b.d.) I can go into more detail about this later but am busy with other things at the moment. In brief, it concentrates on the evolution and changing meaning of the term over about a century, and the pairing or inclusion of other notions such as transsexuality or fetishism (and others) in the understanding of the term, and later dissolution of the paired terms again.

The common theme throughout is change, as the psychiatric and medical establishments struggled to understand what they were seeing in specific cases, discern patterns, and come up with psychosexual theories to explain it. Different experts had different views, largely dependent on the case histories they were personally familiar with through their practice, or referred to them by others, and then the whole process repeated itself as new cases, new information, and a better understanding led to new or refined theories. My wild-ass guess is that a reasonably complete article would end up being three to six times the current length. I won't get all the way there, but I hope to leave it in a state where the overall picture is clear, and so are the gaps and the areas needing expansion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, being directly about the Transvestism article and how to improve it, this sub-discussion would be relevant at Talk:Transvestism, so if consensus is Keep, somebody should move it there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with that despite my different view in the above discussion. If the page is going to be kept an not merged, it needs a lot of work as you point out. Also, the above discussion is not yet closed either. Historyday01 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much to @Mathglot for making so much improvement. However I still believe the articles are so closely related that they should be merged. Although I have requested a close at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Merge proposals there is such a queue there that I suspect there is still time for people who have not yet supported or opposed to be asked if done without canvassing Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and I realize I got sidetracked on a host of other issues and didn't see the time go by, but I still have a major addition planned at Transvestism, so I will try to get back to it in the next couple of days. Thanks for the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly the focus I imagined. Thank you Mathglot! pburka (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Pass. I have much experience with the subject matter, but my views are no longer mainstream and would hardly be agreed to by any other Wikipedians I've seen active on it now. Good luck! That much I can say. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)