Talk:Transgender

The source https://www.britannica.com/topic/transgender has only two uses in this article. Both of them are in the lead, and both of them are only used to push the idea that there is no agreed upon definition of transgender. However, Britannica themselves are mainly just talking about demography researchers, and that is already covered in the article. My two cents:

1. Encyclopedia Britannica is a weak tertiary source that should not be used in the lead of such an important Wiki article.

2. The claim itself is likely too contentious to be justified by a tertiary source.

I propose removing the claims and the source as-is. If a better source can be found, the digression will still likely belong somewhere outside of the lead. 50.38.35.238 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced Britannica with a better source from the article body. 🍅 fx (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Add a hyperlink to the Chair in Transgender Studies. The Chair in Transgender Studies is the world's first research chair focused on the study of transgender individuals, issues, and history. It is housed at the University of Victoria, located in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Stormnabout (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where specifically in the article do you propose this be added? Cannolis (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In the first paragraph please change "typically" to "generally" and also add "generally" in front of "gender identity" for cisgender people. This situation is general not typical. ~2025-41263-28 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done::Hi. Editor here. I will not be making either revision as I feel “generally” makes it less encyclopedic and “generally” is not necessary and would only lengthen the article without reason. Cooldood5555 (let's talk) 21:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/blog/is-drag-the-same-as-transgender

I know this was discussed before but cross dressers and drag performers aren’t transgender. Transgender is not a fluid word. The definition of the word is someone not identifying as their birth sex. That definition hasn’t changed. Cross dressers and people who do drag aren’t doing these things because they don’t identify as their birth sex. Also, it’s transphobic to conflate cross dressers and drag performers as transgender. These links say the definition of the word transgender and how it’s not the same as drag. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your note -- I might be missing something, but aren't the mentions of crossdressing, drag, etc under the § Related identities and practices section? I do think those sections are in need of a rework, but I don't see anything that says that people who cross-dress or do drag are transgender.

We could add some intro text into that section that clarifies the difference, or would you advocate for removing the RIaP section altogether? Srey Sros^talk 21:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Drag and cross dressing isn’t related to transgender. I think that part should be removed all together and include the definition of transgender which is someone not identifying as their birth sex. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Remove: At the start of the article it says that cross dressing is part of some definitions of transgender. Saying that crossdressing is part of some definitions of transgender isn’t correct and it’s transphobic. Not identifying as your birth sex is the definition of transgender. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the part saying that drag is included in som definitions of trans and I cited the planned parenthood source that says it’s not the same thing. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Was that the right move what I did? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Given the lack of objection, it probably was. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok good. Yea, crossdressing is not a form of transgender DarknessGoth777 (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I was confused to see that this was entirely removed. I had added to that section with the very intention of distinguishing the two concepts while still acknowledging overlaps between the communities (there are trans people who do drag and there are some who used it as a gender exploration space but they aren't the same concept). I think it should be readded under the "sociocultural relationships" section, perhaps in a more suitable form if there are issues. VintageVernacular (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

They have nothing to do with each other. Cross dressing is one thing and transgender is another. I cited a source by planned parenthood that says the difference. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I know there is a difference. That's also not the same thing as saying they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, which contradicts good sources that were used (an academic journal, The Conversation, history writer speaking to CNN) explaining the relationship. If you want people to know there is a difference, why remove the section explaining that? This was the careful framing the section contained, cited to the journal Gender and Society:

"Nevertheless, there are drag artists of all genders and sexualities who perform for various reasons. Drag performers are not inherently considered transgender. However, for some trans people, drag communities have been 'a safe and fun arena for exploring gender identity'."

I now see too that the section about how the term transgender relates to non-binary identity was also removed. This is something that may likewise need elaboration since not every non-binary person identifies with the term transgender. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Keeping those sections are important. I restored the section as I do not believe there is currently a consensus for removal. The content was removed far too early. If it is to be removed, it should ONLY be done once this discussion has ended, not before--Historyday01 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

OP shouldn't sweat it. And perhaps the fact he felt inclined to remove it means the text could be clearer about it. VintageVernacular (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. I just reread the "Related identities and practices" section and I never had the indication that the article was saying that those within that section were transgender, just that their identities/practices were related enough to be included. Historyday01 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've restored the relevant material to the lede. If your starting point here is that "Transgender is not a fluid word", I can only say that you are arguing in direct opposition to what the sources say, and may be conflating your personal usage of the word with academic usage. Yes, a quick dictionary definition, or the definition given by an activist organization, may purport to give a simple answer, but when it comes to the sources Wikipedia actually cares about—chiefly, scholarly secondary sources—there's zero question that different sources use different definitions, not all of which match your preferred definition. You're perfectly entitled to the belief that the simplified "person whose gender differs from sex assigend at birth" definition is the only correct one, but that's not the same as us being able to say, as an encyclopedia, that it's the only correct one. If you want to argue against inclusion of "does not have a universally accepted definition", in the face of sources that say exactly that, then you'll need to provide other secondary or tertiary sources that conduct an analysis of usage and conclude that it does have a universally accepted definition. Similarly, if you want to omit mention of definitions that include cross-dressers and drag queens, you'll need to cite sources that establish that such definitions are fringe and thus not worthy of mentioning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

As a gay guy, I agree with the definition that transgender is not fluid. What so-called sources backed by Wikipedia say are often tainted by political bias that has nothing to do with acceptance of trans people; they are often used by this part of the media, especially in the US. This would be encyclopedically catastrophic to label drag queens as transgender. It doesn't make any sense and seems pushy-COI by certain users. --CoryGlee 11:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: We're not labeling drag queens as transgender. We're saying that some reliable sources consider them transgender. This is important information for our readers to know, because it means if a survey says like "X% of Country Y is transgender", that survey's definition of "transgender" may or may not be the same as the general-purpose one used at the start of the article. That's essentially the whole point of the cited source: [L]ittle is known about the prevalence of gender dysphoria or the proportion of the population that should be considered transgender. The reported prevalence estimates are greatly affected by differences in methodology, and by variable definitions of transgender.

I'm not sure why you're bringing politically biased sources into this; we're talking about what scholarly journals say, not what Fox News says. I'm also not sure who you're accusing of COI (do you mean POV?) here; as far as I know, most of the editors involved in creating the current lede, including the "does not have a universally accepted definition" wording, are LGBTQ. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not refer to Fox News, precisely. Fox promotes sheer hatred against trans people. But thinking that CNN or MSNBC are "more reliable" because of their rhetoric is amusing. They do not even care about trans people, but trans people have become easy to get used for political purposes, especially in the US. That's what I meant, and it is discussed by other reliable sources, even. The trans community joining the protests for a felon killed by a police officer and unrelated causes puts in question these "scholars"'s POVs. And even scientific journals will say something that's equally discredited or questioned by an equally respected scholar. That is what I said. But anyway, I don't get involved in these useless discussions where it is impossible to debate a rigid ideology. I'm gay anyway, and thankfully. Best regards. CoryGlee 12:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: I have no idea what you are talking about here. Who mentioned CNN or MSNBC? What do any protests have to do with this? Please keep your comments focused on improving the article at hand. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

LOL. Tamzin you were the one who mentioned "Fox News" ... Are you serious? Not interested in interacting with individuals like you. Consider this ended from me. CoryGlee 12:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You said "we're talking about what scholarly journals say, not what Fox News says..." // get your facts straight as to NOTAFORUM. Thanks. CoryGlee 12:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Listen man, I don't know you, and I don't know what's going on in your life right now, but there's clearly some fundamental disconnect here and I don't think I'm gonna fix it by arguing with you, so just, I hope you have a better day. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks user, same to you. CoryGlee 12:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, being "LGBTQ+" (I find that crazy enough) doesn't mean that people within that broad community cannot disagree on certain topics. I already disagreed with "being LGBTQ+" ... Just G for me. CoryGlee 12:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m a gay guy also and yeah transgender is not a fluid word. It’s transphobic to include drag queens as transgender DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@DarknessGoth777: That's your opinion. You keep stating your opinion. Could you please address the question of what the sources actually say? I have pointed to reliable academic sources saying that "transgender" is defined different ways in different sources, including some sources that use it to refer to any kind of gender nonconformity. Can you point to any reliable sources that dispute this analysis?

It's important to stress that the article doesn't currently say that drag queens are transgender. The article for the most part uses the most common, somewhat idealized definition of "transgender", but it takes the time to note that some sources use the word differently. This is standard for Wikipedia articles on terms with inconsistent definitions.

It's also important to stress that, when sources define "transgender" differently than the main definition, it's not necessarily because they misunderstand that definition or harbor some hatred of trans people. There are often practical reasons for this; for instance, when trying to do a census of transgender people, one may only be interested in people who have taken some overt step toward transition; or when assessing psychological outcomes for transgender people, one may only be interested in those diagnosed with gender dysphoria; or, yes, when doing broad anthropological research, it may make sense to include all gender-variant groups under that umbrella term, including drag queens. Do I personally agree with that last definition? No; I'd rather a source use "gender-diverse" or "gender-expansive" or "gender-variant" in that context... But my opinion doesn't matter, any more or less than yours does. All that matters is what reliable sources say, and neither you nor I is that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLUESKY The most common and accepted definition of transgender is not identifying as ones sex assigned at birth. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, which is why the article says it's the most common definition. You are arguing that we shouldn't even mention other definitions, even when they appear in reliable sources. The burden is on you to explain why reliably-sourced information should be excluded from this article. So far you continue to only express your personal opinions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@DarknessGoth777: nice to meet you. In fact, there are many journals that distance any form of artistic expression from gender identity. But if you may take my advice, don't push it because it will bring you only a waste of time. Unfortunately, a user (backed by arbitrary concepts based on US political bias) considers Fox News unreliable while expressing themselves in open opposition against Fox's stated ideology. Can you imagine if I posted on my user page that I am a right-winger who does not consider CNN and related as reliable? I'd get jumped on by hysteria. I'd recommend you to leave it this way; the far-right nut cases winning by a landslide every election in the West is proof that this agenda they support so much is backfiring on them, and subsequently, on us all. Cheers gay compatriot. By the way Wikipedia does not right great wrongs and most sane people know that they can find lies on here. CoryGlee 21:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: If you're going to continue to pick a fight here, I can take this to WP:AE and we can talk about how you treat other editors in this contentious topic area, but I'd really rather not. You've made clear you're not interested in improving this article. Could you please leave alone those of us who are trying to maintain it, then? Or at the very least, could you cut it out with the incoherent, off-topic ranting about why everyone but you is wrong about politics? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not address anyone, and you are free to take it wherever, because I did not mention anyone nor did I say anything offensive. That's all. My words were to a well-meant input by DarknessGoth777. Please, control your temper. Thanks. That's all. CoryGlee 22:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

And please, besides controlling your temper, could you please AGF? I never said everyone but (me) is wrong... Baseless claim because I never said such a thing. I happen to agree with DarknessGoth777. Dissent is not censored. CoryGlee 22:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You're also right. Transgender is not a fluid word it means not identifying as the sex you were assigned at birth. That definition hasn't changed. I also gave sources giving the definition. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The source that was cited next to the sentence that said there's no universally accepted definition didn't say that and it even said that trans means someone not identifying as the sex they were assigned at birth. The same website that the source was from says the same definition of transgender. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The whole study is about how the term is defined in different ways across various studies, and that there isn't one universal definition people use. I'm really not sure where in the study you're reading something else, and obviously a study about the meta-use of the term is going to be a better source for understanding how the term is used than individual places that define the term (we prefer secondary sources to primary sources -- in a discussion about how a term is defined, sources analyzing how other people define a term are what we ideally want).

You've also WP:OVERCITEd the first sentence of the article. I've reverted your changes to the prior status quo per a lack of consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That was a good decision. Personally I am a bit tired of this user based on their interactions on other related pages. Sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

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

In the last paragraph under the Coming out subsection of the Culture section, the text "(by whom?)" appears as normal text. Assuming that this was meant to be a ^{[by whom?]} template, it should be removed, attributing the "lack of knowledge" to "by friends and family". ~2026-14551-90 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@JuxtaposedJacob do you recall this? Slomo666 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Embarrassing - a placeholder made it through to the final text. Fixing! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 01:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Already done, with thanks. Jack Frost (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)