Talk:Transfeminism

Please see Talk:Transfeminism/comments

I noticed that the fact tags have been replaced with links. It's an improvment, but such links in the text is against the manual of style. Most of them should be recast as "xxx is yyyy"^[1], or "zzz claims xxx is yyy" ^[2] for individualistic or controvertial points. If using the same source twice, the later uses need only the ref name with /.^[1]

A lot of this needs to be updated. I've spent a great deal of time talking with transfeminists, and the idea that the gender binary and patriarchy are western, colonial systems is most certainly not a widely-held belief. Neither is the belief in indigenous, pre-colonial third-gender roles, as transfeminist analysis of these groups finds them near exclusively to be trans women. Talia Bhatt is a prominent voice within these circles, and her analysis serves as a good starting point to challenging some of this article's assertions. As a reminder, this is an ideology, and a branch of feminist thought, and its own beliefs are widely available in theory form. https://taliabhattwrites.substack.com/p/the-third-sex Missmonstergirl (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I added a little bit in reference to Bhatt's work under the Radical Transfeminism header. I agree that a lot of this article fails to reflect contemporary transfeminist views. In particular some of the assertions about the incompatibility of transfeminism with second-wave are directly at odds with recent developments in transfeminism.

I'd love to help put this article in better shape, but I'm still new to wiki editing and am not really sure what the process is for significant revision like that. Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it anyway. Missmonstergirl (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm also quite new, but yeah, this is really insanely bad. Transfeminists absolutely are not pro "gender, not sex" attitudes towards transition. They are by far the most fervent supporters of sex being changeable, as sex is the gendering of the body. I'd have to go digging through some more sources (probably Bhatt's, because she's by far the most prominent voice in the field) to directly dispute these claims. Bhatt also has a lot of support from established figures in transfeminist thought, so its not as if this is something that's going against the grain of the movement. I believe both Julia Serano and Susan Stryker praised her work? Missmonstergirl (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

See if you can find reliable sources that you can use to add the updated information. If you're not sure what is considered "reliable", you can review this: Wikipedia:RS. Wikipedia is a place for collaboration so if you're not sure how to go about something, you can always request assistance from the Wikipedia:Teahouse.  This sort of thing can feel overwhelming so take it slow, learn the ropes, maybe edit other articles to get a feel for things. Thank you for taking an interest.

Happy editing! S1mply.dogmom (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Particularly regarding some of the sources I'd like to use here, various writings by Talia Bhatt are self-published, but have been cited positively in more rigorous academic settings (see: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00497878.2025.2565492, https://www.proquest.com/openview/df481a7d1f9fb07c2a1c37f561419b9a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y). Does the citation of her work by other reliable sources, make it reliable in itself? Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure, to be completely honest. I would take these articles to the Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask there.

Good Luck! S1mply.dogmom (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm interested in helping with the caveat that I'm more practiced in editing biography and history articles rather than theoretical frameworks. I was the editor who added the Salas-SantaCruz article, and if that section comes across as orientalizing it certainly needs revising!

I read over the Bhatt piece and its strength is critiquing western cisgender theorists, while the brief section responding to Gill-Peterson is rather narrow and does not represent the arguments made in Short History of Transmisogyny. Reading it and the addendum to the article has helped me identify pain points, though I'm still not sure where you're seeing the "gender not sex" claim- is that related to "social construction of gender" or in reference to another section? The Salas-SantaCruz and Gill-Peterson arguments is that the western gender binary system is a layer of colonialism, whereby indigenous third-gender communities have different/expansive foundations of understanding gender. The arguments push to understand pre-colonial communities on their own terms rather than flattening the experience to fit a universal transgender identity, which is both built upon and reacting to western gender binary framework. The arguments do not claim that the communities did not experience discrimination prior to colonialism, or that patriarchy is unique to western society.

Looking at the conclusion of Bhatt's post, it doesn't appear that she necessarily disagrees with JGP. The mention of the friction between hijra community and upper class transgender activism in India aligns with JGP's analysis. I was reluctant to include Gill-Peterson's book here because I think she'd be ambivalent about being called a transfeminist, but since this article is about a field of analysis rather than identity, her work should probably be incorporated.

I understand the frustration of wanting to incorporate analysis that may not yet be published to WP:RS standards, and I expect that Bhatt's work will eventually be published. I've learned through Wikipedia editing over the years that writing takes time and frequent revision. On Wikipedia we are documenting and summarizing work that has made it through the process. Of course that process has its own issues, and I could go on... Fortunately there's already a wealth of published materials that should be incorporated here- the Zhu book review and the Richman dissertation would both be valuable sources, TSQ also had a special issue "Trans/Feminisms" in 2016 and has had relevant articles in more recent issues, and TransReads.org has a number of texts uploaded for open access. I've also thought about including binaohan's 2014 book, however it's also self-published, so secondary sources would be better for citing. As with any analysis framework, there will be points of disagreement between sources. Best practices are to first summarize the arguments and contributions to the field in a way that reader unfamiliar with the topic can understand, and to specify the authors/scholars for better representation of views. I see now that I failed to do that with the Salas-SantaCruz article, and I'll work on revising that. I appreciate the provocation to revisit this, and hopefully work together to make a better article! Lastchapter (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Under “common foundations”, it is stated that the transfeminist critique of modern feminism is that it is “too focused on biology” and that it conflates gender with sex. That’s not an accurate description of their beliefs. Transfeminists do not believe sex is biological. They believe it can be changed, and that it is simply the gendering of the body. They are not simply concerned with gender and unquestioning of the reality of sex, they dispute its existence entirely. “Biology is not destiny” is not the rejoinder of the transfeminists to “people of the female sex are oppressed and trans women are of the male sex”, their rejoinder is “trans women are female in their sex and gender and should be regarded as such”.

with regards to the “intricacies of pre-colonial third gender systems,” where are you getting this from? Because it’s not accurate in the slightest. I don’t know if you’ve spent any time talking to transfeminists, but they do not believe those exist. They also don’t believe so much in the gender binary as they do in the gender hierarchy. The transfeminist view of society is that the hierarchy goes; the First Sex, Male; and Everything Else, those who are consciously regarded as female, the Second Sex, the ‘broodmares’, and those unconsciously regarded as female, the Third Sex, the ‘fuckdolls’. They believe this more or less applies to all societies of human history. Especially not since the publication of “The Third Sex”, there are very few transfeminists writing today that talk about “pre-colonial third genders” as anything but the vicious degendering of (usually) trans women. They dispute the entire concept of a pre-colonial third gender. They do not believe that discussing these “pre colonial third genders” as being trans is flattening, they think if you don’t discuss them as being trans, you are reifying their abuse and degendering. Whatever perspective you are referring to is not a transfeminist one, plain and simple. It doesn’t reflect their views and shouldn’t be added here. The assessment of Hijra found in ‘The Third Sex’ is more or less applied to all “third gender groups”. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I don’t think we’re going to agree on this, but the critiques of GP are entirely accurate. Regardless, she’s not a transfeminist. Her perspective isn’t relevant here. Decolonial feminism is not the same thing as transfeminism. These disciplines do not agree. Why is she being included at all? She shouldn’t be incorporated, no, because her analysis is directly at odds with transfeminist analysis. If we want to include her work somewhere, put it in a “decolonial feminism” page. These are not and have never been the same disciplines. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the biology statements in common foundations, I'll have to look closer at that section.

I mention the GP book because she is the only trans women who Bhatt responds to in the piece referenced. The Salas-SantaCruz article is cited in the article. Please remember that a Wikipedia article on a topic is meant to address all aspects of a field. There is no scholarly field with such cohesive beliefs as you've referenced- there are claims and counter-claims, points of disagreement and alignment, trends and areas of further exploration. Furthermore, the article must be built on specific sourcing of claims. Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields goes into this in further detail. Lastchapter (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The ideology of the article you linked is not transfeminist. They’re not referring to “transfeminism”, they’re referring to decolonial feminism with a trans focus. I’m remembering that just fine. But these are identifiably not transfeminist positions. If we can’t find a source for them, which I’m fairly certain we can, then we can’t just default to what other disciplines of feminism believe in. These are “claims and counter claims,” but the counter claims are accurate to transfeminism and the claims aren’t. If we can’t find a source for that, we shouldn’t include it. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s important to remember that “trans feminism” isn’t actually the same thing as “transfeminism”. Transfeminists don’t really ever split the word. Like I said, “decolonial trans feminism” isn’t the same ideology as “transfeminism”, it’s decolonial feminism with a trans focus. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple replies, but again, we can’t just use decolonial feminism as the basis for the transfeminism article. It’d be like using ML language in the Trotskyism one, or vice versa. There are similarities, and overlap, but they aren’t the same and there are very key differences, and this is one of them! This isn’t a perspective transfeminists hold. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I more clearly see the problem now. “Feminists who are trans” is not the same as “transfeminists”. We honestly should remove that whole line at the start that says “or trans feminism” and the “some decolonial trans feminists believe” bits because it isn’t just a commonwealth of trans people within feminism, this is a belief system in its own right, not shared by all trans people in the field. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're using the phrases "ideology" or "belief system" for a framework of analysis and field of scholarly research. The definition for this article is "a branch of feminism focused on transgender women and informed by transgender studies." An ideology, "a set of beliefs and values," is different.

I'm interested in improving this article to reflect the branch of feminism focused on transgender women and informed by transgender studies. Transfeminism as an ideology may need to be a separate article, if you can find reliable sources to reflect that. Lastchapter (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You bring up something relevant. This is not reflective of transfeminism as an ideology, which it is. Feminism is an ideology, too, but that’s beside the point. This is reflective of trans feminism, or trans people’s place in feminist studies, which is something transfeminism is concerned with, but is not the same. This article should be re-edited to reflect the actual ideology of transfeminism or retitled something like “trans studies in feminism” and left mostly as it is, with perhaps additions referring to the transfeminist ideological perspective. “Transfeminism” and “transfeminists” are not terms that are synonymous with this articles subject. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know why you’re “concerned”. This article regularly conflates trans studies in feminism and transfeminism. It’s trying to talk abt the former, but it is also talking abt the latter. Missmonstergirl (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Please identify reliable sources that would demonstrate the ideology component so that we can work from common understanding. Lastchapter (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

For sure. I'm currently quite ill, so it's taking me a while, but @Flockofsparrows420 cited a few sources that go over them in some detail. I'll have to give the second a read but skimming the first it seems accurate. I'll link these here.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00497878.2025.2565492, https://www.proquest.com/openview/df481a7d1f9fb07c2a1c37f561419b9a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Missmonstergirl (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Certainly prioritize your health. I always hold that Wikipedia work is important, but not urgent. I did look over these sources and believe they can contribute to the article, however there is nothing support the idea of transfeminism as an ideology. Lastchapter (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I will, of course. I’m sure that I’ll be able to find stuff, given that Susan Stryker and Julia Serano openly praised Trans/Rad/Fem, which surely must inspire some writing. I think also that, I mean, it literally is. It’s a whole different section of feminism, like radical feminism or decolonial feminism. I understand that without academic sources we can’t cover it, but the article covers it as well as trans studies in feminism. If we can’t cite for transfeminism as an ideology, surely we can remove references to it from the article and focus on what it talks about, that being trans studies in feminism? Missmonstergirl (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

If a claim is represented in a reliable source, there must be a strong argument for WP:REMOVAL based in Wikipedia policies. As a new editor, it would be better to familiarize yourself with the process by adding information backed by reliable sources and appropriate citations. The TSQ Trans/Feminisms special issue would be a great place to start. Lastchapter (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Removed this section as the cited source had no mention of Mexico: